Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

to order the regular meeting of the Belvedere Planning Commission. The first item on our agenda is open forum, which is an opportunity for any citizen to briefly address the Planning Commission on any matter that does not appear on the agenda. Comments are limited to no more than three minutes. Matters that appear to warrant commission consideration may be agendized for further discussion at a later meeting. is there anyone in the audience who would like to speak during open forum rebecca is there anyone on zoom with their hand raised there's nobody on zoom but i think if you could get a little bit closer to your mic that would be helpful okay it's up it's on can you hear me now yes thank you thank you okay uh now we'll move on to reports Are there any commissioners who would like to provide a report? Seeing none, does staff have any reports?

I do have a quick report. I'd like to let everybody know that Commissioner Justin Bochos has resigned from the Planning Commission due to scheduling and personal reasons.

Thank you. We appreciate his service.

Yes, we do.

We'll now move to the consent calendar, which consists of items considered to be non-controversial. Unless any item is specifically removed by any member of the council, staff, or public, the consent calendar will be adopted by one motion. Items removed will be considered in the sequence that they appear on the agenda. Would any member of the Planning Commission like to remove a consent calendar item?

No.

OK. Would any member of the public like to remove a consent calendar item? Rebecca, any hands on zoom?

There are no hands raised on zoom.

Okay. Thank you.

Mr. Chair. Yes. I just want to use this not to just send up a reminder flare that, um, it might help us on the commission to get some sort of report. on the aging of permits and projects that is to what extent are we deep into renewal processes on how many projects and whether that suggests something needs to be changed. That's all.

Thank you for the reminder.

Noted. Thank you, Don. So may I have a motion to adopt the items listed on the consent calendar? So moved.

I'll second.

Let's vote. Aye.

Aye.

Thank you. I will now open the public hearing on item four, design review variance and revocable, it's a hard word to say, license to construct a shared elevator at 310 and 312 Beach Road. Can we have the staff report, please?

Thank you, Chair Seidel. and members of the Planning Commission. For your consideration, this evening is an application for design review variants and revocable license to construct a elevator, stairs and landings at 310 and 312 Beach Road. 310 Beach Road is a steeply sloped lot in the R15 zoning district. In 2006, approximately two thirds of the property below the home incurred slide damages due to severe storms. In 2022, the property obtained a revocable license to construct new stairs and access the dock shares with 312 Beach Road. These new stairs were never constructed. 312 Beach Road is also sleepy sloped. In 2022, the property obtained a revocable license as well. And this was for landscaping within the city-owned tide lot. Currently, neither property has access to their shared dock. Here shaded in blue is the extent of the city-owned tide lot. Any improvements within this area require that a property owner obtain a revocable license. The project proposes to construct a new elevator directly on the shared property lines of 310 and 312 Beach Road. The elevator will be built on a steel track no taller than three feet above existing grade. The track would extend 86 feet on a straight path, terminating before an existing landing. At the bottom of the track, the applicant proposes a new 50 square foot wood landing that will connect to the existing landing and pier. On 312 Beach Road, the project proposes constructing an upper and lower landing connected by new stairs. The area shaded in red represents a 23 square foot section of the upper landing, which would exceed the city's four foot height limit for paving slabs within the side yard setback. This area of the upper landing would be eight to nine feet, six inches above existing grade and three feet, six inches from the property line. Both the elevator and landing would be set at or below the existing retaining wall. Here, the area shaded in yellow depicts the eight to nine foot six inch tall upper landing in relation to the existing wall in the background. To the right is the elevator cab shown in yellow as well. The elevator track would be supported by nine concrete piers embedded into the hillside. The elevator would measure six feet 11 inches in height from the track to the top of its guardrail. The applicant proposes to repair the existing at grade landing used for pedestrian access to cross the strip at high tide. This pathway is shown here shaded or hatched in red. The colors and materials for the new landing and elevator would match the existing structures. This includes stone-clad walls and steps with decking at the lower landing and dark gray metal guardrails. The applicant requests two variances for planning commission approval tonight. The first would be to provide relief from Belvedere municipal code section 1948-190B to allow an eight foot tall paving slab within the side yard setback. where four foot tall paving slabs are allowed. The second would be to provide relief from 19-24-0-6-0 to allow a elevator to encroach into the side yards and rear yard setbacks for both properties, which have a standard 10 foot side and 15 foot rear setback requirement. The Belvedere Municipal Code requires specific findings being made. First, they must constitute that a variance will not be a special privilege. The findings that special circumstances apply to the property, including size, shape, and topography, and that the variance would not be detrimental to public health or safety or injurious to property owners. Staff recommends that the variance findings can be made. First, the granting of the variance would not constitute a special privilege as several properties along Beach Road adjacent to the City Tide Lot have received variances to encroach into the side yard setbacks. These include 296, 242, and 228 Beach Road. Additionally, a height variance was granted to allow an eight foot tall retaining wall at the rear yard of 330 Beach Road as well. second special circumstances apply to the property the steep 60% slope of the parcel combined with the existing six foot six inch tall retaining wall. constructed to stabilize the hillside make the elevator stairs above four feet in height necessary and strict compliance would be impractical second. The property at 310 Beach Road experienced hillside slide damage during a severe storm in 2006, limiting the feasible routes to the existing dock. And third, neither 310 nor 312 Beach currently have access to their shared dock, which is a standard feature for Beach Road properties with dock leases. The applicant requests a revocable license to allow the elevator woodlanding and existing stairs to encroach onto the city tide lot shown here in gray. A revocable license may be granted at the discretion of city council when there is some benefit to the public. Here the applicant is stabilizing the city tide lot by installing new concrete piers. Staff has received correspondence from the parks and open space committee chair, Charlie Harrington requesting that access across the strip as given further consideration prior to the revocable license going before city council for review. For the commission's consideration in 1897, the Belvedere Land Company conveyed the strip of shoreline to the city. The grant deed provides that the strip shall be improved, preserved, and maintained as a public park and waterfront for all people of the town, and that no structure thereon shall impede the free passage of pedestrians from one end of the strip to the other. This project is exempt from CEQA. And as conditions staff recommends that the findings for design review and variance can be made. The colors compliment the existing residents. There's a balanced and harmonious relationship with the elevator and upper landings into the existing hillside. And then the peer supported landings, open air design and placement below the retaining wall help minimize the bulk and mass of the structures. Staff also recommends that prior to the city council review of the revocable license that staff, the applicant and the representative from parks, lanes and open space committee work together on a solution to provide access across the city tide lot at medium or high tide. Thank you and Rebecca and I are happy to answer any questions.

Are there any questions of staff from members of the commission?

I'll have a question. Is it, are you able to identify the public path in that diagram you had or the plan where it is comparing to where the elevator lands and where the stair starts again?

So The elevator ends where the, there's a note there that says elevator car bottom stop. That's where the elevator will terminate. And then you would get off the elevator onto that new landing. From that landing where the red dash is shown, that's the existing landing that's there now. That would be below the elevator and that new landing, and there would be access across that.

So currently the walking access just crosses over the existing landing and the existing landing is not proposed to be changed.

The applicant is proposing to replace it or to refurbish it.

But it'll be in the same place even with new planks.

Yes.

Yeah.

Thank you.

Any other questions for staff members? Then would the applicant like to make a presentation? Please go to the podium.

That way everyone can hear you with the microphone.

We're kind of formal around here. I'm going to make this very brief. Thank you for the opportunity to come before you. Mark Conroe, 310 Beach Road. This has been a long time in the offing. It replaces the stairs were approved a couple of years ago, doing the same thing that's accessing from the houses to the dock. So it's a much more elegant solution, much less impactful visually and otherwise. And we're looking forward to move forward. So thank you for your consideration. And I'm happy to answer any questions. I'll stay here for a moment.

My only question is, I understand this is going to be for the joint use of the two properties. We like to have harmony among our neighbors. And while good fences make good neighbors, I just want to make sure that you and your neighbor have thought about how this will be deeded if either of you move and whether or not there's going to be anything recorded in the land records to evidence this for the, you know, whoever has your house in the future.

Absolutely. There'll be both whatever reciprocal easement agreements and maintenance agreements negotiated before we start and put on title. Great.

Thank you.

Okay, thank you, Mark. I had one question for Mr. Conner. Mark, did you see the letter from the Parks and Open Space Committee that came yesterday?

No, I didn't. Ms. Amme discussed, I think, the contents with me.

And I'm going to assume you have no issue working with the committee to resolve what their concerns might be on the landing.

I'm more than happy to interface with them. Great. Just to be clear, I don't think, nothing we're doing in this application will impede access that exists today, whether it's on the hill or on the beach.

Good to hear that's helpful. Thank you. Okay, thank you. Do members of the public have any wish to comment on this item? Marika?

Thank you for having me, Commission. I'm Marika Bergson, and I'm here actually representing the Park Open Space and Lanes Committee. Charlie Harrington, our chair, could not be here tonight, so he asked me to represent. And I wanted to sort of give a quick little background and an update. Oh, is it not on?

Oh, I'm shorter. There we go.

Okay. Anyway, I wanted to speak on behalf of the committee to share with you a little bit more detail of why the letter was submitted and what we hope to accomplish and appreciate and why we appreciate the planning staff's recommendation. that before the revocable license is issued, that the applicant meet with us and with the staff to address public access at this site. So the, unfortunately the planning, I mean, the parks open space committee was not notified of this item coming on. And there is a protocol for that. And I think because maybe things that impact the tide lots don't come up that often, it was overlooked. And so we did not know about it until, we saw the staff report and the agenda last week and had then we had the opportunity to speak with staff yesterday and ironically we had a meeting yesterday afternoon so that was just sort of fortuitous timing so we spoke to them and we after reviewing the report ourselves and sharing it with the various committee we were very concerned about the public access because what is shown on the plans is not actually accessible. I think you have to see the photos and be down there to see it. But what is shown there is about 100 feet up a scramble bramble hill. And currently the access that people do use to get along there is actually behind the current dock because there haven't been stairs there. for many, many years. And it happens to be there that the dock is very low. And so people would go sort of behind it because otherwise at a medium, even a medium tide, let alone a high tide, you would have to be crawling under the existing dock. So what we're hoping is that by having this meeting, which ideally would have actually happened before this came before you, I think if we had been notified that could have happened, but where we are now is it didn't, we would like to have an opportunity to actually really address whether the current, what is shown on those plans are actually usable, accessible public access, both for enjoying the beach and the tidal lot per the original deed, as well as the lease, as well as for safety of people who are along there. that beach if you've never been down there the beach goes in and out and the hillside comes up and down and you could find yourself in a place where it wouldn't be very accessible if this is designed and installed in the way it currently is shown on the plans so we encourage you to as part of your findings to support the staff's recommendation thank you thanks

I just wanted to note that when the stairs were approved a couple of years ago, it did come in front of Parks, and when I was on Parks, we did look at it. At that point, the proposal, which I think the applicant just said is the same as proposed now, is that the entry point to the dock would be lower so that it is accessible from the from the ground down there, so.

So that's not shown currently on the design. That would be, if that were, I think that, I mean, we don't need to talk about that necessarily now because no one has the photos, but I think if you looked at that, if at the junction where the current, the new stairs that they are building to replace the old stairs hit the dock, that is actually a place where the public could pass over easily and very consistent with other sort of systems set up along the other docks along there. And so that would be ideal. What is shown now is something that is way up the hillside that at least as evident now could never have been used as a public passageway because you would be scrambling up the very steep slope that they are using stairs to bridge across. And so the expectation that someone would climb up it, cross the landing and go down the other side, I'm afraid is not accessible or safe in our opinion. So that's why we're hoping to discuss it and find an option.

What was being proposed to be done now is just for the elevator, which is indeed well up the slope. and not touching the part that's down on the strip?

My understanding is that it includes the stairs and the connection to the dock is what's shown on the drawing. And that's what the revocable license would impact. So I don't know, and I will leave that to the city staff or someone, but that's what's shown on the drawing. And I will say that one of the things that Charlie did put in the letter was that the plans themselves were not very clear as to where was the tide lot and the fact that that was open space and making it very clear what would be usable, passable public access. And that's the hope and that's the job of the park open space and lanes committee is to look for this as a city priority and to help inform and work with the city staff and the community to ensure safe public access.

Okay, so I can talk to you.

Thank you. I think Mr. Conroe would like to make a comment. Yeah.

Very, very brief. Yeah, this application has nothing to do with the shoreline. As was noted, this elevator terminates where the previously approved stairs terminated, which is well up the hill. The stairs were shown not because they're new, but because they're existing and for the convenience and understanding how the elevator connects to the existing stairs. The existing stairs are up the hill. So we're not doing anything besides fixing the stairs that are there. and not changing anything along the way. along anything close to where public access is. This terminates the elevator, again, terminates up the hill, as was noted, and we're just repairing what's there to get from there to the dock and onto the dock. Okay. That's clear. So the stairs were just shown for convenience to understand how the existing stairs connect. They should have been labeled more clearly that they're existing, but they are existing.

And I think in... You know, this time period after this hearing and before city council, there'd be an opportunity for everybody to update everybody on the, the precise design proposal and what's remaining, what's changing and hopefully clarify how everything's going to work when it's finished. Sure. Thank you. Rebecca, any hands raised on this item?

No hands on zoom.

We've heard from the applicant again. No further comments. I will now close the public hearing and bring this matter back to the commission for discussion. Jenna, would you, our former member of the Open Space Committee, why don't you kick it off?

Sure. So I'd just like to say that I appreciate the spirit of cooperation between the neighbors here. I think it's fairly brave. But I also really appreciate the fact that they already share a dock and that they want to be able to use their shared dock. And it is a really steep slope. And given some of the movement on the slope You know, recently, I think the elevator is a great idea, rather than stairs, which obviously, instead of just having a couple of concrete pilings like stairs are much more impactful and therefore if there's another slide could just slide slide down into the water as well. um and i think that making our um our decisions subject to further conversations and agreement uh between the the applicant and the and the parks open spaces committee on on continued access across the strip is a good idea but otherwise i can make all the findings thank you commissioner shinsky please yeah i think a uh

Ultimately, I'd be comfortable making the findings on the first two motions and then the recommendation to the city council on the RL. Conditional on the parks committee being satisfied. I did engage Mr. Conroe in kind of a philosophical conversation, which I won't make him suffer through twice here. But it's the idea that here we have a case where two neighbors, Usually when people want to encroach or apply for a variance to encroach on side yard setbacks, aside from emergency responders and emergency access, the people who are most likely Disproving of that is, in fact, the next door neighbors. And so in this case, you have two next door neighbors sort of mutually agreeing to not maybe if not build a structure, do something in each other's side yard setbacks. And obviously, in this case, so, you know, to my mind, it's more than OK after all. You wouldn't want to say, no, you can't do that. You need to each build your own elevator or have each, you know, dig your own set of switchback stairs down the hill. Obviously that doesn't serve anybody's interest. So in this case, obviously the, seems to me the city's interest is met by allowing this sort of mutual encroachment. I guess the, but the question I was kind of going through my head is, well, in what cases is it not okay for the city, even if two neighbors agree to TAB, Mark McIntyre, do something in each other's setbacks. TAB, Mark McIntyre, or pick anything that you might need a variance for build higher allow each other or encourage and support each other and in. TAB, Mark McIntyre, Building higher than the height limit, for instance, and I didn't quite come to an answer it's just it but a obviously it seems to be in case like this, where there is a variance it does make sense to call out. what the public interest is in allowing neighbors to, I don't know, conspire or collude is kind of the wrong word, but agree to encroach on setbacks or any other envelope requirements. So it was a philosophical exercise. Obviously I very quickly came to the idea that I'm getting very silly, very fast. And again, Thank you, Mr. Conroe, for indulging me. So in my case, I'll have no problem making the findings with the motion three being contingent as staff has recommended.

Thank you. I think to my input about what Don is saying in when would be an issue when two neighbors can agree on something is that, you know, we need to decide on these properties, assuming the neighbors can change and other people can own the properties. So how we can keep the property you know, city of Belvedere zoning in place. So that is, I think, beyond neighbors that owning the properties. However, going back to this application, I also think that the hill evader is going to keep the natural state of the hill better than the stair. It is less intrusive and sharing means less impacting the natural state and greenery there. So I also can make the finding of motion one and two. And of course, the public access is important, and that seems to be able to verify and have a resolution before it goes in front of the city council. So I can make the findings as well.

Thank you, Asli. I generally share all of the, my fellow commissioners, bring up one thing that's, or that um i think adds some strength to this is that the piers for the rail for the elevator are going to be a stabilization element on the slope i looked at that slope it's it's a serious slope and it's been known to move before. So I think that is really a public benefit that we're going to get out of it. And I also share the thought that this is probably the best access with the most minimal impact on the site by sort of combining two properties into one facility. So I will be able to make the findings to grant design review and adopt the resolution for the variances. and recommend to city council approval of a revocable license. I stumble on that word again. I do think that this meeting between the applicants and the open space committee is very important. I think everybody wants to know what they're getting into. It's a hard site to access. It's not like I scrambled down the hill to look in detail at the conditions down there. And so I want to thank the committee for wanting to further investigate this and make sure that everything's squared away before the project is undertaken. And I'm sure it will be. So, and I think, um, one of the commissioners is interested in adding a little bit to the motion. Um, so I think, um, with that, we may be ready to make some motions.

Want me to do it? All right. All right. I will take the easy motion first. I'd like to adopt a resolution. I'd like to propose a resolution granting design review approval as conditioned to construct shared elevator landings and stairs for the properties located at 310 and 312 Beach Road.

Second.

All in favor? Aye.

Aye.

Aye. Okay. All right. That's the other easy one. I would like to propose a resolution granting two variance approvals from the Belvedere municipal code to allow for the construction of the elevator within the side and rear setbacks at three 10 and three 12 beach road. And from another section of the Belvedere municipal code to exceed the four foot high height limitation for paving slabs in the side yard setback at three 12 beach road.

Second.

All in favor? Aye.

Okay.

All right. And this is my drafting on the fly. I would like to recommend to the city council the approval of a revocable license. See, now you've got me doing it. For improvements located in the city-owned Tide Lot at 312 and 312 Beach Road, subject to the Parks and Open Spaces and Lanes Committee, being satisfied with the continuation of pedestrian access to the strip.

Second. All in favor? Aye. Aye.

Aye.

Okay, thank you. We'll now move on to item five, design review and demolition and floor area exception at 419 Golden Gate Avenue.

Thank you, Chair Seidel and members of the Planning Commission. For your consideration, this evening is an application for design review, demolition, and exception to total floor area to construct a new single family home at 419 Golden Gate Avenue. The subject property consists of a 1,500 square foot single family residence on a 9,000 square foot rectangular shaped lot. The property is set on a ridge and has unobstructed views of Richardson Bay and the Golden Gate Bridge. 419 Golden Gate Avenue was originally part of a single 22,700 square foot parcel that comprised 421 Golden Gate Avenue. In 2023, the city approved an urban lot split, dividing the original property into two separate lots. As a result, 419 Golden Gate Avenue is now 9,113 square feet, while 421 Golden Gate Avenue retains the remaining 13,669 square feet. This project proposes to demolish the existing residence and construct a new residence. That would be 3,566 square feet, two-story residence. The residence will be set back 16 feet, six inches from the front property, six feet, 11 inches from both side yard property lines and 41 feet from the rear property line. The second story would be set back an additional eight feet from the garage wall. Additional improvements would include six off street parking spaces and an infinity swimming pool at the rear yard. View from Golden Gate Avenue, the structure height ranges from just over six feet to 21 feet in height from Golden Gate Avenue. The garage will be made using black steel and tinted glass panels. The residence would have a maximum height of 31 feet, six inches at its southern end. Here, the left elevation shows the proposed glass windows and doors spaced between cedar and stucco siding. The adjacent neighbor at 421 Golden Gate Avenue provided a letter of support for this project. From the right elevation, the project proposes three second story windows facing 417 Golden Gate Avenue. The rear elevation consists of floor to ceiling sliding glass doors along much of the exterior facade. The project proposes a 408 square foot first story deck that would wrap around the left and rear sides of the house and 860 square foot second story deck around the front left and rear elevations. Colors and materials include oak finish cedar and chantilly lace painted stucco siding, horizontal fascia bands in a black and onyx colored metal, aluminum window and door trims and a custom glass guardrail and tile decks and walkways in light beige color. The project proposes 685 cubic yards of soil removal and 165 cubic yards of fill. 75 cubic yards of that soil will be redistributed on site to minimize off-haul. Additionally, 37 cubic yards of concrete are proposed for removal and 135 cubic yards of concrete are proposed to be brought onto the site. Exterior lighting includes one wall-mounted sconce at the entry and 10 step lights along the right side yard and 31 recessed soffit mounted down lights around the outdoor walkways and decks. The project proposes to remove seven trees including a 36 inch Monterey cypress and four clusters of Japanese privet between 14 and 20 inches in diameter. New landscaping would include 16 silver sheen to 20 feet tall along the left and side yards, five olive trees to 30 feet tall, and an assortment of Berkeley sedge, blue agave, and dwarf cape rush throughout the front and side yards. The applicant requests an exception to total floor area to allow 3,566 square feet where the maximum is 3,007 square feet within this R15 zone. In order to grant the exception, the planning commission must make the following findings. These include that primary views will not be significantly impaired. There are unusual characteristics applicable to the parcel, which minimize the impact of the greater floor area, that the structure is appropriate in mass and bulk and character of the neighborhood, and that the additional square footage will not substantially reduce privacy on adjoining properties. Here, staff recommends the findings can be made. Primary views from adjacent properties will not be significantly impaired as the subject property is oriented out of the adjacent views line of sight. Views from uphill neighbors will not be impaired significantly as the residence is set back over 80 feet and above the subject property's roofline. The steep slope and lot's small size and width are unusual characteristics, which also minimize the impact of the greater floor area. The steep slope necessitates the building to be constructed downslope and away from the adjacent properties. The smaller lot width also minimizes the buildable area, restricting the building to a narrower buildable envelope and structure, which will reduce its perceived floor area. The residence is appropriate in mass bulk and character of the parcel as well. The project conforms to all setback requirements and has a modest average building height of 24 feet and eight inches from existing grade. The proposed size of the residence is similar to others as well in the neighborhood, which are between 3,000 and 4,500 square feet. Additionally, the project does not substantially reduce privacy of adjoining properties as the proposed windows are not within neighboring sight lines and landscape screening will provide additional buffer. The remaining windows are oriented towards Richardson Bay. Staff has received six letters raising concerns about the project. These are centered around water view blockage, parking configuration, total number of parking spaces, construction-related impacts, and additional landscape screening. The Andersons at 417 Golden Gate are generally supportive of the project, wish to include conditions related to landscape screening. Dan Hunter at 420 Golden Gate is generally supportive as well. It has concerns related to total parking spaces and the need for appropriate landscape screening. And we received two letters of support for this project. Unanimous support for the project from 421 Golden Gate Avenue and 412 Golden Gate Avenue. The project is exempt from CEQA. And a conclusion for the commission's consideration, staff has two recommendations to be incorporated as conditions of approval. First, that the proposed uncovered parking be reduced from four to two and provide landscape screening in its place along the front yard. Doing so would still provide the property owner with four off street parking spaces while softening and screening the appearance of the structure from Golden Gate Avenue. Second, that the proposed exterior rope lights be removed from the lighting plans as these lights would not comply with the Belvedere Municipal Code Section 20-04-180, which states lighting shall be shielded and directed downwards. Conditions Incorporated staff recommends that the design review findings are satisfied. The project maintains substantial setbacks. The height, the average height of 24 feet, eight inches is not excessively large and landscaping will provide screening along both side yards, softening the structure. The very roof planes, extensive glazing and horizontal and vertical elements help minimize the bulk and mass of the structures, 31 feet, six inch building height. Thank you. And Rebecca and I are happy to answer any questions.

One piece of information that in response to the neighbors' concerns about vehicles, the applicant has revised the plans. And I'm sure they'll show him in his presentation tonight that the two parking spaces on the left-hand side, if you're facing the house, have been removed. There's a hedge proposed there now. And there's turf behind it. If you want to go back to the colors and materials. And we have an image of it. There you go. Yeah. On the bottom left. So those spaces have been removed on the left where that hedges.

Great. Thank you for that clarification. Commissioners, do you have any questions for staff?

I do. Regarding the setbacks, site setbacks, I see in the report, in staff report, it is noted that the site setbacks is prescribed as 10 foot. Is that accurate? Because you mentioned that the proposed is 6 foot 11 and you mentioned that the setbacks are met. But if it is 10 foot and if they are at 6 foot 11, how is that met?

If you see, it's really small in the staff report. There's a little asterisk, and under the table, there's a section of the municipal code that allows the setback to be 10% of the average width of the lot, but no less than five. So in this case, they took the average width, and that's the setback that they're allowed.

Thank you.

Mm-hmm.

And is the removal of the parking spaces and the replacement with the hedge, is that the only change to this property? I know there were some height and other changes that were proposed by the applicant to 421.

Those changes are reflected on the plans that you have. Okay, great. Thank you.

I have one more question is also and you mentioned the building is two story, however, the treaties shows it's a three story and some elevations shows three stories. So I assume that is an ad you that we are not supposed to review and but always other applicants show that floor plan so that as a whole, we know what is going to be and what it is, and I wonder what is the staff take on that is that. optional for applicants to show or not show or how do you ask them to send their proposal?

To just put a note that says ADU under separate permit, but it looks like we forgot this go around.

I think a little bit of information in the set is very helpful to us, even though it's not under our purview. But it can be confusing to look at plans where you have sort of a hole in the drawing. So thank you. Okay, I see no more questions from the commission. Would anyone in the public like to comment? I'm sorry, we need the applicant's presentation. Applicant, please.

All right. Thank you, Commissioner Seidel and planning commissioners. My name is RJ Succo. I'm the property owner and also the project architect. And great job, Sammy, getting a lot of this information already covered. So I'll try to not duplicate as much. But this is the most current and latest rendering here on the front. As you can see, it does include the six foot silver sheen hedge and removes the parking to the left of the entry. So, you know, a total of four off street parking stalls are being proposed at this time. Thank you. So this is the existing site. I'm sure most of you are familiar. It's toward the end of Golden Gate Avenue near the turnaround. It was part of a lot split with the property at 421. And this is a two-story cottage structure that has been there for a good amount of time. Next slide. Thank you. The areas, so this is the zoning parameters provided on the plans, but I decided to kind of highlight some of the, I think, improvements or benefits here. Existing side yard setback of that cottage to the west is 4 feet 5 inches. That will then be adjusted to the new requirement for the minimum setback of 6 feet 11. The front yard setback is at about 10 feet, and that'll be pushed back to 16 and a half to exceed the 15 foot minimum front yard setback. And also the parking spaces as a result of comment from my neighbors have been reduced down several times now to four. Thank you. So most of this was discussed. The third point down worth mentioning is the overall height between the, or at least the highest point of the existing structure compared to the new structure. It actually reduces the height by 1.2 feet. And there is no variance being requested as part of this design review application. But there is a request for an exception to floor area. The standard would allow 3,007 square feet and requesting 3,566. So an additional 559 square feet. And these are the points needed that Sammy has already eloquently covered. to kind of justify findings if there are for this request. One thing I wanted to just, when I was looking at the staff report, I did see that the modest height of 24.8 was based on a previous revision that has since been dropped an additional four feet. So calling no to that here. I wanted to cover just the public outreach that has been pretty consistent since December. It's been great to not only discuss the project with my neighbors, but to get to know many of them. And it just makes me even much more excited for my family to eventually move in here and be part of their community. wonderful street. So I first started with intro letters to the whole block on Golden Gate Avenue. And, you know, I've received a lot of support written and verbal about just the overall design aesthetic. I participated in 10 plus in-person meetings, countless emails, and just once again, thankful for the feedback, a lot of which has, I think, improved the design, not just for the neighborhood, but also for myself and my family. And some of the bigger items that have come up that I believe have been addressed are reducing the height of the structure. I've modified the eaves and soffits, pulled them in to kind of improve sight lines, reducing the parking, and then just some miscellaneous architectural requests This is a letter that I sent to the neighborhood after several meetings kind of going through various issues. The biggest one was after placing the original story poles, I agreed to reduce the overall height four feet on the upper story. That did cause, I wasn't really able to compress the superstructure per se, so I really did have to go lower with the finished floor. That did have a result on the overall earthwork volumes, but after reaching out to say is that, you know, are we good with that being the consequence, I heard yes, that's more important to get the height down. So we're all good there. like I said, pulled some soffits and eaves back. There was actually a benefit on the west side to having a more aesthetic corner to look at by introducing a window on the upper level. Originally, I was proposing a composite material for some of the architectural wood slat treatments, and I modified that to a natural wood. Removed, at that time I was removing, yeah. So actually those, if you read it, that's actually refers to uncovered, not including the additional two in the garage. So I've actually since come down an additional two parking spots compared to what is listed there under number six. Where parking has been removed, I've filled it in with landscaping and other green features. So that includes two olives in the front yard as well as several in the back. Yeah, I've made numerous commitments to preserve existing privacy screening via trees and mostly we've mostly pittosporum on the west side and we'll maintain that through construction to the extent it's not in conflict with the structural part of the project. Also we'll be putting up eight foot tall construction, fencing and screening during construction as well for the whole length there of that border. And also lastly, this wasn't in the letter at the time, but it was something discussed that I committed to was to where I have a TPO roofing, put a rock type treatment on it. And so I'm proposing a small Mexican pebble. So this, you know, it's a little hard to see, but you can see in the distance, this is the story poles prior to reducing them. This is a picture taken from across the street at the Owens property. That juniper in the center is being removed as part of this project. And this is just an estimate of the four foot lower story poles. You can still see the outline of the juniper, but now revealing some views in the background. These are things, the parking I've mentioned on this. They've also had some more subtle commitments made to my neighbors to the west and east, mostly in terms of windows. And I'll be covering that. That just shows the four spots that have been removed compared to the original. So on the west elevation, some partial privacy film on the two windows there on the corner to the southernmost side. The upper soffit has been pulled back to a maximum of one foot. It doesn't quite look it because there's an architectural column that drops there of that same width. And then same thing on the bottom, that similar type feature has been pulled back in three feet to a maximum of one foot. On the east side, I worked with Christina Wang, the neighbor to the east, to reduce some of the window widths, just kind of reducing overall glazing, putting in some privacy glass in that window there that is the bathroom, and then also raised the one that's right in the center on the top level, which feeds the closet, and also yeah, just tightened up the door down below as well on the far south side. These are just some perspectives. The southeast perspective, just worth noting, that shows the prior condition with the that kind of cutoff wall on the deck. So I didn't have a chance to get that fully updated, but that will on the top be reduced down to a one foot, whereas in the middle would be reduced to a one foot as well. So losing three there. That bottom level is an ADU. Apologize if it didn't pop out of the plans. I did have a note on each of the elevations that referenced it. And then also in the plan views, there was an outline of it. So I wasn't trying to hide it, but I could see that if you were just looking at it for a few minutes at a time, it might not jump out of the page. So this is, you know, some of not just the materials but also inspiration I think you could see where some of the features from some of these homes are finding their way into this project. The tile I'm proposing is a beige porcelain tile. I'm proposing for the railing for it to be kind of the hidden embedded type versus being bolted to the side. The doors are all to be Fleetwood and also planning on using the Marvin Vivid line for the windows. The white paint on the exterior is Chantilly Lace, which To my eye, it has a touch of warmth, and I think actually wouldn't be surprised if this color, especially under natural light, is a similar tone. It's not a blue type, you know, influence to the cooler side. There's also been a few minor updates to the landscaping as the parking has been removed. primarily working with this palette of olive trees, dwarf capebrush, silver sheen, Berkeley sedge, and blue agave in a very small dose. The yellow I put on there just to demonstrate where the turf will be to kind of have a better understanding of the ratio of kind of hardscape versus, even though it is proposed as artificial turf, it's still gonna come off as a green palette. The green areas are the landscaped areas. And we'll go slightly into more detail in the next two slides. So looking at the front, there's silver sheen on the east side there along the side of the house, also in front. And that's intended to grow and be maintained at six feet. There's olive tree on either side of the front yard. and then some medium-sized kind of cape brush there kind of in the middle. What's not shown but is definitely there is there are a lining of existing trees on the west, and those are intended to be preserved as much as possible without in conflict with the construction. Looking at the back, There's some areas on the west side where there are some gaps in the existing trees. So we did want to fill that in. And it's been great working with my neighbors, Carol and Andy. And we'll continue to coordinate and make sure that we get it just right. I want what they want. And we've had a great number of conversations so far. I do have, okay, and then just a few more olive trees in the back and some minor other plants. So any questions?

Questions?

Go ahead, Jenna. Thank you.

All right. In terms of the lighting, as I'm sure you know, there's a couple of hot buttons for all Belvederians. Lighting, views, trees, and coyotes. I'm assuming there's no coyotes involved in your plans. So I'll go to lighting. In the in the presentation it recommended reducing reducing the lighting and making sure that exterior lighting is is shaded and downward facing are you fine with what was being proposed.

yeah I mean it's. The intent was to actually indent the rope lighting so it was shielded to the sides and above. But if that's a strong topic, I'm not going to fight it.

I generally don't like rope lighting because it looks like a bright line. That's fine. Thank you.

Yeah, I'm fine accepting that.

Okay. And then I know there's been concerns with the neighbors for privacy and landscape screening, not just through construction, but also in perpetuity. I know this isn't the time to propose, but what we normally do is have a... final landscaping plan approved after this design approval, because we understand that things sort of morph and change when actual construction starts.

Yeah. And that's fine. I did get a chance to submit all the west and east elevation revisions, including the windows, to staff. That was earlier today. So I don't expect they've had a chance to really review them. along with the revised landscaping that you saw. And so I'll follow the process on that.

OK. And then my other question is, in terms of the equipment for the pool, where is that proposed to be?

It's supposed to be underneath the pool.

OK. So that would be on the side closest to 421, not the side closest to 417.

Well, actually, directly underneath it.

Okay. So to make sure that in terms of noise, that it doesn't affect your neighbors. Yeah. Thank you.

I should say your drawings were a bit confusing. I found some, you know, contradicting information and hard to read and a cross section through the house from the street through the steps going up or down to the house, to the pool, the relation of the pool to the land would have been very helpful. Now, could you explain the entry, basically the relation from the street to the house, what is happening, all those lines, what are they, and then also explain how much from the street, are we going lower to get to the finish floor of the first floor? And then, each floor, what is the floor to ceiling height on each of them? And then after you explain this cross section, if you can elaborate why the pool is sitting in the air and what is the distance from the bottom of the pool to the soil below, what is that height?

Sure. It's possible to go back to the slides. Just start with the, if you went back to the landscaping, that would help with the entry elevations.

Forward a few. Can you stop sharing and then I'll?

I got it.

you're going the right way yeah it's probably the third to last slide yeah okay so um so there's a total of eight stairs being proposed from the street down to the entry so four then a landing then another four um The stairs were introduced in Alaska weeks as a result of reducing the overall height of the structure. Otherwise, they would have been it would have been a flat entry. As I'm not sure if the. So and then that area listed right there that's main level is split into two portions. There's the kind of continuance of the entry to the backyard, which has a slightly higher height. you know, pull it off my plans, but I wanna say it's interior 13 feet, whereas the remainder of the main level is a 10 foot interior ceiling. So to the- Sorry to interrupt.

Would you show that on the floor plan? Maybe go to A.3 and explain there where the, thank you.

Okay.

So if you look at the west elevation,

OK, I don't know. And I don't know if it's helpful.

I have a laser pointer. So we have the same sheet names as you.

Just give us a second. If it's helpful, I can use my laser pointer and point to the screen. I'm not sure. It doesn't look like I have a pointing tool here.

as a which machine

Okay, so. Okay, if I use this laser pointer on screen or I don't think I can I don't think the cursor here will. So this area, this entry area right here is at 14 feet, but it doesn't have any effect on the overall height because there's no second story above it. The idea, if you saw the front elevation, was kind of to start stepping down the height and mass. and also create a focal entry that would then open up to the backyard and views to the south. This area here on the main level is at 10 feet interior, as well as everything else down here on the main level is 10 feet interior ceiling. And then if you want to get anything else on this one, or do you want to, can we move to the upper level and the upper levels at nine feet into your ceiling? So yeah, all of this is a nine foot interior elevation. There's about 18 inches provided for the structural joists and above and below, which also needs to account for minor roof slope for drainage and potentially some areas for some ducting, so. Sorry, was there another piece of the question?

Yes, the pool. So what is the underside, the design of the underside of the pool? What is the material? Why is it sitting in the air? And what is the height from the soil to the underneath of the pool?

If we can go, I don't know if you have to go to the grading plan. We're back on C.3 or 4.

C.3.

C.3.

Yeah, you're almost there.

One more, yeah. So here is through section CC, you can see the correlation between the finished floor and the pool. It's essentially flat. So this area here is fill and the pool is actually suspended. I believe this is a... five feet to the bottom of the pool and then another five feet to the top of the pool. It's a relatively shallow pool. This is where the pool equipment would be located beneath it.

And what is the material of underside? You see that from street below. So can you explain what do they see? What is the material?

Yeah.

I mean, I think would certainly look to add some greenery that that hasn't. It kind of will depend on the the opportunity there. Right, finding correct plants, but it would be the necessary pool equipment. And then if there's an opportunity to supplement the landscaping plan with additional plantings here, that would be my preference. but what is it what is the material of underside oh it's earth earth what was that earth uh this slope is just no no the the building oh it's um it's gonna be um supported with uh steel beams um placed in um concrete piers and and suspended

So it would be painted steel? What would we see from underneath? So from the street below, let's say, if it is visible, what would they see?

Sure. There is going to be some lateral supporting elements. I don't yet know if that's going to be a cable system or something more like a wall. But as of now, there's going to be steel columns that are painted. presumably a black or a bronze.

Thank you. Did you have questions?

Yeah, thanks, Alex. Thanks, RJ. Just a couple things. So I noticed you had in the new landscape plan, kind of what would be at the northeast corner of the property, kind of new landscaping there. Yep. Um, so where do you, where do your trash receptacles go at this point?

Yeah. So those would go behind the gate. There's a, in the side setback on the West side behind the gate.

Okay. Got it. So even with the garage front of the garage kind of on the side of the garage.

Yeah. You wouldn't be visible from the street and that would allow them to be rolled out along the slope driveway as well.

So, um, The other thing, it's a lot of glass, right? And glass, I sort of some ways regard it as kind of the tree falling in the forest. Is somebody around to complain about the glass or not? But it's a lot. Do you plan to, and as someone with a west-facing house with a lot of glass, do you plan to coat that or treat that or use something tinted? Because at this point, if it's just untreated clear glass, you're going to burn alive in there. So what are your thoughts on the glazing?

On the front facing, I was intending to do a tinted glass on that. On the back side, kind of in line with just Title 24 recommendations, like a low E3 glass. But I'm also open to suggestions.

Um, and then, uh, on the, I noticed one window that you revised window plans, uh, where you shrunk one of the upstairs window. I just want to double check on that. Um, it was the one you, you said you were, you were going to pull it up in the closet space. Yep. Is that not, um, the master bathroom?

So the one that was shown with the master bath is the one that has privacy glass on the bottom half, and then immediately, if you're looking at the elevation to the right, is the one that was the closet.

And I guess, and on that side, which would be the west or the south-facing side, whichever way we're going to call the diagonal, really the only neighbor affected would be next door, Christina, on that, as far as I can tell. And I guess my only question there is, I'm not trying to create anything where there isn't anything. So that's not what I'm trying to do here. But I am thinking that given the aspect of that side, whether there might not be a lot of glare even an unmanageable amount of glare that comes off for a neighbor who doesn't in fact live at that house yet. So is maybe not aware of how much glare there would be. Am I making any sense whatsoever?

Yeah, I can just say I've met with their architecture team. We had a discussion. It seemed like everyone was in agreement with the changes. you would know as well as I would. I haven't had that experience, but I'm not saying it wouldn't be potentially. If there is a coding of some sort, I'm more than happy to introduce that. At least one that's within a reasonable range and that's typically used in Belvidere, sure.

Great, thanks. Yeah, Alex, that's it.

Okay, thank you. So with that would, and thank you. Would any members of the public like to comment? Please introduce yourself.

Hi, I'm John Owen, and my wife and I live in 416 and 418, which are directly opposite this property. We did have some objections, which I wrote into the city about. I'm assuming you read those. But I have to say, Mr. Suko has been pretty good at listening to those objections, not just from us, but from other neighbors. But only tonight did we see his confirmation that he's going to remove the parking spots, which were our last and probably most important objection we had. So we are removing that objection, and we can support the construction of this home, subject, of course, to your approvals. So thank you very much. Thank you. Did you have a question?

No, please. Anyone else?

Hi. I think that'll work, yeah. All right. We'll do a little Oscar here. I'd like to thank my mother. No, I mean the staff there, especially Rebecca and Sammy who worked, I'll say, tirelessly I'm Dan Hunter 420 Golden Gate Avenue I should know to remember that but they worked very very hard almost like shuttle diplomacy to make sure that we all came together on these projects so thank you very much thanks for everybody who came and looked at the situation really appreciate it I think RJ I've got what almost 40 years as an architect and he he was one of the the most cooperative designers that I've worked with. And I think there's subtleties in his design.

We can take a look at maybe the section.

I just want to point it out to the commission as an architect, things I like and put my time. While we're looking for the session, one thing we would like to request is And it usually is a condition of approval, but I reviewed it with Rebecca, and it wasn't there. It's that we certified the heights of the story poles. And I don't want a six-inch taller building than what we all agreed to.

So I think that, and I think Rebecca had planned to get that in.

So on this, where is this?

Do you want the section, Dan?

Yeah, you can. John Gerstle PB, David Ensign PB, David Ensign PB, David Ensign PB, David Ensign PB, Commission friends. John Gerstle PB, David Ensign PB, David Ensign PB, JV day I did a really. John Gerstle PB, David Ensign PB, A really subtle thing there where he pulled back to that second level at the entry, I think, was a very clever thing to do and make that. the massing much better on that. You can also see as he goes the line of the slope. On the second floor, he cut and went negative space on that whole area up there, which to me is a really good way of addressing fitting into the slope. He did a good job of that. And then he snuck the ADU under in what was primarily crawl space, which again was a a very good way to handle it. I know we don't talk about it, but I would commend him for the way he handled that. How about the render? And I can talk to the render. Very interestingly, he stepped down in two directions on the sloping side, which is not something I've seen. But I think from the south perspective, it really stands out as a PB, Harmon Zuckerman, An amazingly good reaction subtle to the slope of the land and I think it's going to be a really interesting house to look at from the street and I think it's in character with the street and we're glad. PB, Harmon Zuckerman, Thank you.

PB, Lupita D Montoya, Thank you. Thanks very much.

Okay, I'm scanning the audience to see if anybody else here present would like to say anything. Rebecca, do you see any hands on Zoom?

We have no hands based on Zoom.

Okay, then I think we're...

If I said certified storybook, it's certified the frame as well, isn't it?

For the mic. Sorry. So we have it on record. Sorry, Dan.

RJ corrected me just now that it's not the story polls that we need certified, but the framing plans, the framing when it's up.

Oh, the framing. Okay. Yeah.

So that's certified heights at the eaves and the floor levels. So we don't have any confusion when it's all done. Oh, on the reflective glass too. I think we all know well enough to know that if we have a reflection problem from glass, he'll work with us to deal with it. So I'm quite comfortable there not conditioning that.

Yeah, I want to ask her that.

I have a question when you're available, Rebecca. So the certification of the framing, is that something that is standard in our process or do we need to reference that tonight?

I said you could add a condition of approval that the height is, once the house is framed, that the height is certified by a licensed surveyor. And yes, we've done it in the past for projects where

it's tight in the neighborhood and people are concerned about the height so they don't go through the whole project yeah and then oops all right i think um with that we're ready to bring it back to the commission commissioner jamali would you like to start sure um

The one that I have the most problem with is the exception to total floor area. The code says in order to grant an exception to total floor area, the planning commission must make each of the following findings. I'm not gonna read all of those, but I'm gonna talk about B and C and potentially D that I don't think I can find them. B says that there are unusual characteristic applicable to the parcel, which minimize the impact of a greater floor area. Well, I think the and then the reasoning that they use this one, they explained this one was that the unusual characteristic is the smaller size of the land. Well, the size of the land is the very reason that dictates how many square foot you can build so that I don't find that a unusual characteristic. This land is what it is. It's a square, very straightforward land. It has a size, and that size dictates how much you can build. So I cannot find number B. And I think that alone is enough, but also that the proposed structure are appropriate in mass, bulk, and characteristic for the parcel and neighborhood and zoning district. I think the slope here, the land has a slope. And I don't think the pool is designed to step with the slope in order to minimize the building mass and bulk. I think, as a matter of fact, it stays above. And from below, the street below, you can see this mass hanging. where could potentially step in with the slope. And the things that I'm reading is from Belvedere code. So for that reason, I can't even find C. And D is subject to interpretation. I think the privacy of next door neighbor is impacted. The land is very close to, sorry, the mass is very close to Mr. and Mrs. Anderson's. And I think their privacy is impacted, although they gracefully do not object. But and I don't go to that. I mean, either one of these, if one of these is not met, you cannot grant the exception for total floor area. So I cannot make that finding. And then the rest of the things, I think landscaping, removing the trees, but not proposing any trees where this pool again is hanging and from the street below, you wanna mask that. I don't find it appropriate removing all those trees and not proposing anything down there. Rope lighting as staff recommended, I don't think it's appropriate. And I think I ended there.

Thank you, Tom.

Yeah, I too had some questions about whether this would qualify for the additional square footage. I think in the end, it didn't, was not a barrier to me in part because in, This is where a good architect comes in maybe, but it's a wonderful design. I happen to like it a lot. Did that influence my feelings about that particular issue a little bit? I think it did, but I'm not going to pull back on that tonight. I just say, you know, I did have the same thoughts as my colleagues around the, if you are going to do that pool, you are going to need to screen it from below, I think. It's also, I appreciate that, you've done a rendering with the hedge in front, I'd recommend it just not be as formal as that maybe. The street seems to have kind of a mix of hedging material. I think the looser one looks a little better. And just as a note of taste, which is entirely subjective and not in our peer review, but I think there might be a way to use natural grasses rather than artificial turf in those areas. might be a little more satisfying result uh with that uh very much appreciate your working on the size to the extent that you have uh certainly removing the the parking lot probably took away the single biggest consensus item that that everybody would have had about the property um i think overall it's a successful project um and i will be able to make the findings tonight

Sorry, can I add one more thing? I know I spoke, but another thing I want to mention actually to my other fellow commissioners is that this is going to be a precedent. This is a subdivision that if we allow for additional square footage, then it's going to go on and on. And I know our town needs homes. And subdivisions are basically an answer to that. However, the bulk and mass is something that we need to be very careful about if we want to keep the natural beauty of Belvedere. Otherwise, it's going to be lost.

Thank you. Commissioner Watson, please.

Thanks. I'm also wanted to focus on the fact that this is the first time, I believe, that we've seen, at least in modern times, a subdivided lot where there's two new buildings going on. I know that the property that we reviewed a couple of months ago. It's now under construction on sort of where, yeah, exactly where Belvedere meets Beach. I believe that was one lot, correct? Not subdivided. But I... Was it two lots already?

Anyway. 441, 440. Yeah, that was two separate lots at the time.

And I'm also concerned about precedent always. It's part of the problem of being a lawyer. And, you know, for me, I look not... not just at what the two split houses will be, but also the environment in the street that they're on and what their neighbors look like. So from my perspective, I also, with the understanding that the final landscape plan is not going to be determined tonight, but will be determined later, we'd definitely like to see more landscaping and green screening, both on the front and the sides and, and def and definitely on the back. I, uh, I took a walk around, um, and, you know, given the, the steeply sloped lot, you could definitely see, I don't want to say right up the backside a lot. That sounds terrible, but you know what I mean? Um, and then, um, I with respect to the to the to the additional size of the of the of the property, given the size of the of the other houses that are on that part that part of the island. I don't find the additional square footage objectionable, although I would say that the unusual circumstance is not that it's a small lot, but the fact that there's a steep slope in the back. because I agree that once you go to smaller square foot of the acreage, it's just circular. So I would be able to make the findings on that.

Thank you. I'm impressed with... Mr. Succo and the neighbors that have worked diligently together. I think this looks like a really healthy process. I do think it's resulted in a nice design. I think if it's built this way, it'll be an attractive addition to the neighborhood. And when we come to looking at the floor area exception, I had that question in my mind, but I think Part of how I'm looking at it is that the treatment of the massing, the lowering of the house, the support of the neighbors leads me to conclude that, you know, we can kind of think about exactly how it meets the criteria, but I feel like I'll be able to make the finding for the floor area. I do share other commissioner's concerns about the pool. The description of how it might be built doesn't exactly fit what I see in the rendering. I thought I was looking at a concrete structure in the rendering. That's kind of how I imagined it, but I actually feel like maybe we should have a condition that the pool structure needs to be further reviewed when there's more information screened and reviewed. And I do think that the landscape plan needs, we'd all like to see it beefed up. So I think that would be a condition. And I appreciate Mr. Hunter's, as an architect, comments on how you've handled many things. But I want to add one note to it. I think that houses of this nature are exceedingly dependent on the details. And so to accomplish all the... good looks you've gotten the renderings. Please devote a lot of time to the details and get those all right. I think it'll be a good addition to the neighborhood. So I'll be able to make the findings in support of the project with those conditions.

So, Mr. Chair, before we vote, what's within our purview to say about the construction process? I mean, obviously we have a you know, a very tight lane up there. Potentially two houses that we may or may not want to happen at the same time. But what do we have to say about it?

You can say anything, but it's all taken care of during the building permit process. We can't say you cannot, we won't issue a building permit until the House of 421 is finaled, right? We can't go along those lines. We, during, prior to issuance of building permit, we really ask for a robust construction management plan. We ask oftentimes that the construction workers park at the church and there's one van that goes up. So there's a lot of um time and effort that uh the building official and myself and sammy will discuss the construction management plan especially on the street where it's very narrow and there could be two projects going at once

Can I just add a little bit? Yeah, I think I just had a couple other items not to detract from Rebecca's comments. Obviously, it is subject to a CTL, and so will be the adjoining project who receives approval. It's up to them how to navigate that CTL, and it could be a challenging environment. But I do also want to note, obviously, that you do have a demo permit resolution before you as well that does address at least some aspects of construction impacts in terms of, for example, the length of demolition completely, obstruction or blockage of the adjoining streets. So that could be an area where if you want to flesh that out further or want to take a closer look, that would be one area that you could also weigh in on, of course.

My thought is it's less about the demolition, which is generally fairly quick than about the construction process.

I don't know. Can we just memorialize somehow that I know we don't have formal input. Can you say that we'll be watching closely and we want to learn a little bit from this, I think, if both houses are teed up at the same time? Well, there's something here to talk about because invariably when construction starts, whenever it starts, we all know that it can start any time from six months from now to six years from now to never. But is there any Is there any value in sequencing things? Are there any tools available to us, to the city, I mean, not to us, but to help make sure that, you know, can we encourage concrete to be poured on the same day? Can we encourage people to use the same contractor? Is there anything to mitigate what's going to be a proverbial poop show no matter what happens?

One suggestion, of course, would be right here. I mean, RJ is here with us. He may have thought through some of those issues. He may want to address with him some of those concerns and allow him to respond. I think that may be one way to start. I'm sure he's pondered those issues.

Yeah, happy to answer as many of those questions. I actually have had numerous emails back and forth, asking just those questions in very quite, quite detail. So in terms of you know, one of the bigger disruptances in construction is trucking and traffic and all that stuff. And so the goal is to turn them around on the site. So have them pull in, kind of do like a hammerhead three-point turnaround and then go straight out. We would time the hauling, try to do as much of the hauling on like what I would call production days where you're having a dedicated traffic control team that helps get people out likely through Beach Road. And I would be more than glad to have a communication email blast or whatever is most preferred by my neighbors to help get that out. We do see that. I've seen it on multiple days for some of the construction that is happening on Beach Road. And it seems that when they do have that in place, it does work well. Otherwise, Christina, I've been talking. We're certainly open to working together, sharing subs, other things. I do plan to actually manage this as the contractor. So I will be present on a daily basis. I'm happy to talk to any and all neighbors about any issues, and they've already reached out about some certain parking areas that are difficult and all that. Although the parking in the ultimate condition was not desired for multiple spots, I do see it as a benefit temporarily in construction. So we have potentially eight or so stalls. One can have a 10-yard debris bin. The other can have worker vehicles, but really to try to get as much of the kind of earthwork concrete production work completed as we kind of work our way out before we start putting up walls that block ourselves in. really try to attack it in that way. I do have considerable amount of experience in construction, so I view this as an area of strength, and I hope that there's always gonna be some bumps in the road that is construction, but I do feel that I can do it in an efficient way relative to the average person or contractor. So happy to answer any more questions.

Thank you.

All right.

Back to your question, Don. We have in the past put conditions of approval on projects saying that all construction workers are required to meet off-site and that A van is required to bring people to the site and bring them back to their cars we've required things like. parking platforms are constructed first you know after demolition so all construction vehicles are sort of parked off the street so yeah I mean we do keep an eye on the project, but if you have specifics. We can certainly add them to a condition of approval provided.

I'm not the expert here, but those two things sound great. You probably do those without us probably doing that, I guess.

And he has a pretty flat pad on his property.

I mean, I've heard, I didn't know that it's been implemented in Belvedere about the shuttling, but I have heard it being discussed amongst Tehran Council and others. And that's a pretty big lift and actually probably going to lead to more disturbances over time. Crews bring equipment. They're constantly going to their vehicles. So I don't anticipate on most days having more than six or seven workers. So even if they had to drive and pull right into a parking spot they're not gonna really gonna make an emphasis to keep them off the street um and otherwise if if it does um if it were to go on that path i think it's going to be a much longer process um it yeah it would be a pretty significant um It would really change the construction effort considerably to do that.

So RJ, presumably if you build a sort of a temporary parking gravel thing in front, and you use what would ultimately be the entry path for that too, do you fit five vehicles?

Oh, sorry if I missed it. It was unclear. That part, totally agree with. So I would construct the pad for the seven or eight vehicles very early and maintain it through the site because I kind of view that as the livelihood of the construction project. And then it's not a significant amount of earthwork or volume at the end to grade it into its final form. I mean, we're probably talking a two or three trucks in the very end, but it would really provide benefits for the entire length of the construction to have all those parking spots. But prior, the only thing about that sequence is what's more important at the very beginning is getting the total volume of earthwork off. And given the floor area has been dropped, there are some vertical challenges where the temporary roads and ramps are right at the edge of what is generally feasible, 20%. And so it certainly can be done, but I think there's gonna have to be a road that meanders down to where the piles are being driven, and then they're gonna work their way up. And so again, the idea of getting all the earthwork out in a very efficient, productive, coordinated, and communicated way is gonna be the key to this project, in my opinion.

Great, well, I think everybody would say HAB-Jacques Juilland, As many vehicles, this can be off the street as possible in this process, I don't have the expertise to say yes, this is a project where you need to shuttle workers. HAB-Jacques Juilland, Because you're likely to have an excess of you know eight vehicles on the site and you're three on the street, so you should start shuttle. HAB-Jacques Juilland, I don't know that but, but the idea of getting as much temporary parking on the site for construction, I think.

Just also with the building permit, you get three orange tags for three vehicles for this project. So they will not get more than that with the building permit.

Okay. I think, and just since we're talking about this, I, like Don, am not an expert in it, and I think the city staff has quite a bit of experience in helping the applicants manage their way through the construction process. So it's probably good to talk about the goals right now a little bit, but I think maybe we don't have to get too deep into it in terms of our resolutions tonight. So that probably opens the door to getting a resolution on the table.

PB John Gerstle, Jenna did you have some ideas that you want to I do do and i'm i'd like to knock around some some some conditions for consideration before I actually say them. PB John Gerstle, First, is to, and this is for the resolution granting design review, which is motion number one. is having a requirement that the pool structure and supports for the pool structure be further reviewed to reduce mass and impact? Is that the right way of describing it?

I want to ask Rebecca a question. So I was kind of thinking along the lines of it could be a review like we do at staff level with landscape, you know, an internal review. I could

come and take a look at it with you guys just yeah just to make sure that we understand what it is because i don't think it's complete now i think it if you're interested it could be added to condition j that or i'm sorry i that talks about prior additions of building permit a final landscape um plan with further review of the swimming pool structure and um

exterior lighting plan shall be submitted for review and approval by the planning commission chair and planning staff yes put the pool into that one okay what is the um what is the criteria you want do you want it to be lowered or like step down or what what are you expecting to see i want uh

I can't say what I'm expecting to see, but I think I will know if there's a problem with it when I see it, then that's what I'm kind of relying on. I don't think I wanna try to describe what it should be here.

But is it that the finish and material you are concerned or the location you are concerned or all of the above, you wanna see a change?

It's primarily the finish and the material for me, how it's constructed, where the pool equipment is, whether the pool equipment's screened, how the landscaping works. I personally understand why they wanna put the pool at that level, but I think they have to do an appropriate design

Because I can see another application coming later and they want to excavate underneath and add another mass under that pool and add another floor area.

Well, that would have to come to the commission, I guess.

At that point, it makes sense to let them do it.

Oh, maybe not. Okay.

Okay.

So the proposal is to add to I prior to the issuance of a building permit, a final landscape and exterior lighting plan and a revised plan and design of the pool and the structure and supports of the pool of the pool area shall be submitted for review and approval by the planning commission chair and the planning staff.

So that's the lighting, cool, landscaping.

All right. OK, that's that one. All right, condition number two for discussion is to have a surveyor certify that the framing height and otherwise matches the approved plans.

Okay. Yes.

Okay. I believe that, oh, sorry. Also on condition I were to remove the rope lighting from the lighting plan and all exterior lighting shall be shielded and directed downward. Okay. Okay. And then we already have that the landscaping shall be subject to the final landscaping plan shall be subject to review. Okay.

So the trees can be removed now subject to review or should stay subject to review? I would say should stay until you review the new design and see if that they can be removed or not.

We generally don't let people take the trees down until we have a final landscape plan.

Okay.

And Rebecca, I just want to clarify that we don't need to do anything with conditioning the removal of the two additional parking spaces. Those are now considered part of the submission. Since we just found out about this today.

I think to be safe, we could add it to the condition where it references the plans. HAB-Masyn Moyer- it's there's usually a date at the top of the resolution. HAB-Masyn Moyer- Condition be. HAB-Masyn Moyer- yeah so references the dates stamped February 28 2026. HAB-Masyn Moyer- They'll conform to the drawings prepared a Minecraft server 2026 and sheet I don't know the sheet number. we'll find it as revised at the Planning Commission hearing.

Yeah, I think we should just cover the basis and have that reference.

I'll try to find the sheet number.

Okay.

It's shown on A0.1 in the rendering. Let's do A.1, sheet A.1.

And what's the correct date?

We do have a revised set, so we can actually just reference, change the date and the resolution.

Okay, from February 28th to yesterday.

Okay.

316.

Yes. And that includes the parking change. So we can omit that language.

All right.

Read the first motion.

All right. Let's see if I got this. All right. I would like to make a motion. to grant design review to construct a new single family residence attached garage at 419 Golden Gate Avenue with the following conditions. Condition B, shall read plan submitted to the building department for permit issuance shall be consistent with the approved planning commission plans and shall conform to the drawings prepared by Modern Craftsman on March 16th, 2026. Condition two is that the final landscaping plan shall be subject to the review and approval of the planning commission chair and the planning staff. Condition I will be revised, say, prior to the issuance of a building permit, a final landscape and exterior lighting, sorry, a final exterior lighting plan and a revised plan of the design of the pool and the structure and supports the pool area shall be submitted for review and approval by the planning commission chair and planning staff. And the rope lighting referenced in the plan shall be removed. All exterior lighting shall be shielded and directed downward.

Are we there?

I think we're there.

Thank you.

And that a surveyor shall certify that the framing height matches the approved plans.

I second. All in favor? Aye. No.

All right. Motion number two, I don't think we have any conditions. I'll make a motion to grant the demolition permit to demolish the existing 1,560 square foot single family dwelling at 419 Golden Gate Avenue.

Second. All in favor? Aye.

Aye. And then motion number three. I'd like to make a motion to grant an exception to total floor area to allow a 3,566 square foot house where a 3,007 square foot house is permitted at 419 Golden Gate Avenue. Second. All in favor?

Aye.

No.

Thank you.

Could I take about a two minute break?

Thank you. Yes, you may.

You're gonna go busy on them.

so that someone is going to try to build something under there?

Well, they will, and then they come back. I would say, yes, because the other one, you know, like the other one, it was even, remember the other one? It was even that they can't do it. But then I feel like, what is this one? After the mask is there, what else is it? You know what I mean? Yes. What's that?

A hot day. Okay, if I can get everybody's attention now, we're gonna keep moving along. The evening is starting to pass. So we've got one more item to cover. So next on the agenda is item six, design review demolition and replicable license at 421 Golden Gate Avenue.

Can we have the staff report please? Thank you, Chair Seidel and members of the Planning Commission. Once again, for your consideration this evening, application for design review, demolition, and revocable license to construct a new single-family home at 421 Golden Gate Avenue. The subject property consists of a 3,600 square foot residence on a 13,600 square foot lot. The property is set as well on a ridge unobstructed by views of Richardson Bay and Golden Gate Bridge. Single family homes flank the property on all sides and the property is accessed via Golden Gate Avenue to the west. The project proposes to demolish the existing 3,600 square foot residence. and construct a new 4,471 square foot, two-story residence. The home would be set back 21 feet, four inches from the front property, nine feet, eight inches from both side yard property lines and over 54 feet from the rear. The exterior is primarily made up of stucco siding with windows and doors spaced in between. The applicant proposes planners on the left elevation second story deck to provide privacy screening for the adjacent neighbor at 425 Golden Gate Avenue. 425 Golden Gate Avenue spoke recently yesterday with staff expressing privacy concerns from the second story window highlighted here on the left. The building elevation would reach 29 feet from existing grade on this side. The project proposes three second story windows facing the right side yard. The adjacent owner at 419 Golden Gate Avenue provided support for this project. At the right elevation, the building is at its tallest point at 30 feet, one inch above existing grade. The average building height of the new residents would be 19 feet, 10 inches above existing grade. The rear elevation primarily contains a series of casement windows to reduce the appearance of large wall planes. The second story includes a 34-foot wide by 10-foot tall sliding glass door that would open onto a 597-square-foot deck. Colors and materials include off-white and limestone veneer siding, black aluminum framed window and door trims, and a medium gray flat membrane cantilevered roof, along with black metal guardrails. The project proposes eight exterior wall sconces, primarily at the entry and garage doors. There's also two more at the lower level. There's going to be eight recessed soffit mounted downlights, which are proposed at the outdoor decks and entryways. Landscape lighting includes seven well lights around the paved driveway, as well as 27 step lights along the side yards. Two 10-inch and 8-inch pittosporum are proposed for removal at the rear of the property and one 10-inch plum tree from the left side yard. New landscaping would include two swan hill olive trees in 24-inch boxes along the front yard that would be maintained at a height of 12 feet. 23 you pines and 15 gallon pots to eight feet tall along the front and side yard. And the replacement of an existing put a corpus and oak edge along the front property frontage the applicant has stated that additional put a corpus will be planted along the left side yard to provide screening from 425 golden gate avenue. The applicant requests a revocable license to allow the existing driveway, walkway and landscaping to be rebuilt within the Golden Gate Avenue right of way. Staff has received 19 letters of support for the project. and six letters with concerns about the project. Most of the neighbors concerns have been about overall height, the architectural style and massing, parking layout, landscape screening, and compatibility as well as construction. The project is exempt from CEQA and for the commission's consideration, staff has two recommendations to be incorporated as conditions of approval. First, that the proposed skylight be reduced. Currently the plans show 17. The quantity can be reduced to minimize impacts on adjacent neighbors while still providing the property owner the benefits of skylights. Second, that the proposed auto gates incorporate a wood element That would be compatible with the design of the site structures and landscaping as a whole. Currently, the project proposes a series of metal auto and pedestrian gates encompassing approximately 40 feet of the Golden Gate Avenue frontage. And thirdly, staff recommends one additional tree be planted to replace the three trees proposed for removal to preserve existing site conditions. Also, I believe that the architect submitted late today revisions for the gate potentially with some wood, and I believe he's going to show that today in his presentation. With these conditions, staff recommends that the design review findings are satisfied. The project maintains substantial setbacks, including a 20 foot 10 inch at the front yard and nine foot eight inch at the side yard, providing a balanced relationship between the structures. At 19 feet 10 inches, the average building height and the max of 30 feet one inch would not be excessively large. extensive window glazing and a flat cantilevered roof help avoid monotony and the exterior decking breaks up building planes and steps back the building walls, softening the appearance of the southern facade. Thank you. And Rebecca and I are here to answer any questions you have.

I don't think we have any questions at this time. They might crop up along the way, so I'll let you know. Okay, would the applicant like to speak on this matter?

As long as you're all set up. Yeah. That's right.

You don't want, well, okay.

Good evening. I'm Jared Polsky of Polsky Pearlstein Architects. I'm here with my associate, Patrick LaPelche. And we are Christina Wong's architects. And by the way, I want to thank staff for a very, Yeah, it's hard to hear. Okay, sorry. Is that better? I want to thank staff. They're wonderful staff and very detail-oriented. Christina has lived in Belvedere for 15 years. She successfully remodeled her house at 402 Golden Gate. She purchased this house in 2021, and the house is, frankly, in terrible condition. It's too far gone to be remodeled. Christina was very clear with us, the design team from the very start. She wants a home design that follows all the rules, does not ask for any variances, and is designed to age in place. An elevator, but no unnecessary stairs in the house. Originally, she wanted a very traditional design, which we designed. And we worked out a handsome design, but we soon realized that even though a traditional house would still be well under the height limit, it would probably block the neighbor's views. So we pivoted. We pivoted to a contemporary flat roof design in response to the comments of the neighbors, particularly Dan and Susan Hunter across the street at 420, who directly suggested a flat roof, which was fine with us. The hunters invited us into their house. We went up to their upper floor bedroom and looked out their windows. Frankly, I did not see any significant view blockage. And in fact, realized that with the removal of the existing gable roof, we're going to be, with the existing of the gable roof and the fireplace flues, their bay views would be improved. But that said, Mr. Hunter still wanted us to lower the entry roof another foot. We met with the Owens next door at 418. And here again, I was convinced that their views would be greatly enhanced from the existing house. But again, we were asked to lower the house. So we decided Let's be good neighbors. And we lowered the house. And that's why the story poles that I'm going to show you in these pictures are the old ones. They're a foot higher than the proposed height. We also visited the Goldbergs next door at 425. They're here. The existing house intrudes on their privacy, especially looking down on their lower floor deck, as will the new house. It's pretty hard to avoid that. So Christina went ahead and gifted 25 large port-a-carpistries and promised to install bottom-up blinds at the proposed dining room window. And more critically, let's see if I can say this. Oops, I wanna show you the next. More critically, if you can see that, we took out a large window that faced the city from the ADU living room. And so with the podocarpus and with bottom-up blinds, as we promised in the dining room, and without removing that window, we've done the best we can to preserve their privacy. We also wanted to be good neighbors. Some people were concerned that it's stretched out too far into the backyard. So we proposed not only to lower the ceiling heights 12 inches at the main space, but 24 inches at the primary bedroom suite, which is in the southeast corner of the house. The roof will come down and with the lower ceilings, obviously. The entry roof comes down to 12 inches comes down 12 inches as requested by Mr. Hunter. And to respond to concerns about the depth of the house, we cut the master bedroom suite, besides lowering it two feet, we cut it back a foot and a half, the master bedroom and the gym below. I thought that with this offer, we wouldn't need to revise the story poles, because you could see that, gee, it's going to be lower. But that doesn't work that way. So we brushed and had our contractor lower the story poles. And what's up there now is the proposed heights. I'm sorry we complicated the procedure by changing at the last minute, but we just wanted to respond to the neighbor's concerns. I know Christina wants to say a few words and our landscape designer is also here tonight. So thank you.

Good evening. I'm Christina Wong, and I'm so excited for this opportunity to build my new home. I've lived on this block in particular for 15 years, and I love it here. I've been working for many months now with my architectural team, taking into consideration my neighbors' wants. I was very clear with my architects from day one. I want a home that respects the Belvedere codes, guards my neighbors, precious views, requests zero variances, and allows me to age in place. I don't want to forget to thank the commissioners for all their time and their site visits, and especially Rebecca and Sammy for their advice, good work, and excellent guidance, which I always follow. I have great respect for all my neighbors, in particular the ones across the street, the Hunters and the Owens. In fact, I have changed our designs more than once to accommodate their numerous requests. I won't bore you with all details, but we have minimized view blockage, and in our opinion, improved their views. We have hidden, moved, changed angles of rooftop solar panels as much as possible. We have removed skylights. We have expanded their views of the bay. with a lower roof than the existing house, which I believe is significant. As a result of all our hard work, I am overjoyed to have received 19 letters of support for our plans. And as our Belvedere neighbors, architects Marla and Peter Newell wrote in their beautifully written letter, one of many letters written by supportive neighbors, Marla wrote, this design thoughtfully uses the natural slope of the site to minimize the size of the house. The proposed new home amazingly has a lower roof line than the existing roof line. It sits back 20 feet from Golden Gate Avenue with a double driveway, which allows not only for more onsite parking, we're trying to get five or six cars off the street, which is a helpful thing to do for everyone. But more importantly, it allows for one way egress. The design provides for a real ADU tucked nicely under the outline of the house. And then as Jared mentioned, we apologize for the last minute changes that were made in response to my neighbor's further input, which we responded to as quickly as we could. We lowered the roofline further. We pulled back the length of the primary bedroom and the gym. We removed a large east-facing ADU window at the Goldberg request, which is the primary view. We've lost it. We're fine with that. And we continue to work with the Goldbergs, my friends, for additional green plantings to increase their balcony. And I continue to be receptive to all feedback. Thank you so much for this consideration today.

Thanks. Do commissioners have any questions of the applicant?

I have a couple of questions. To begin, the changes that you just mentioned, the lowering roof, the bringing the primary bedroom back and all that is not reflected here. This has happened afterward or it is reflected to what we have? Reflected. Reflected to where we have. So I have two questions. One is that I would like to, for the architect, to explain if this house wasn't on a slope, how would you, basically how your design, how the slope impacted your design? I see one floor that I understand the reasoning. You want to age in place. You prefer not to have steps. But just considering the slope, how did you, how your design work with the slope? If you can explain that one.

I'll try my best. Because this is on the edge of the slope, it's flatter than it starts. It seemed natural to have two levels. access to it by an elevator from top level to the bottom level, then the bottom level to be flat. So again, the age in place, which is not only Christina's request, we're finding that most of our clients are asking for that. We're getting older. And so I think the slope perfectly fit that kind of design. It's flat, then it steeply falls off, and we put the lower floor on the lower level. I think it was a natural, in my opinion.

Thank you. The other question I have, the plum tree that you are requesting to be removed, is that next to the window that they had privacy issue with or not?

I think I can answer that one. I started the conversation with the Goldbergs I don't know, I'm a little slow at developing. So it might have been a year or two ago. And at that time, I thought that plum tree was problematic. It's not near the ADA window that is being removed. It's more closer to Golden Gate Avenue. But my most recent discussions with the Goldbergs are that they do not find that tree problematic. So of course, we're just leaving it as is.

Thank you. And then Do you think the skylights, the number of skylights that are proposed is because we don't have any steps in the main level and bringing light in required all those skylights?

I think we have too many. And we're happy to reduce the number of skylights. Christina wants a naturally lit house, bright rooms. And some of the rooms don't have great window access. So we have some skylights. I think maybe we could, as staff recommends, we can certainly lose a few.

Have you given any thoughts? Have you looked at which ones you could eliminate? Do you have any thoughts as to how many you could eliminate?

We talked briefly, but we Staff was suggesting four or five. I'm not sure what number you'd recommend.

We're happy to remove. We'll talk about it here at the commission.

And then the last question, the story poll that you mentioned came down. When did that came down?

I think the decision was made right after I got more feedback, trying to be responsive to the neighbors, the hunters in particular. And between the story company, I'm in their queue, but they could not accommodate. I looked at other people. They could not accommodate. I got my contractor to do it this morning. Yesterday and this morning, it was finished.

You have photos on the dais of the story.

I'm just happy they got done quickly. Even though I hired someone else to do it, I'm glad they're done.

But the drawings were accurate. There is no change to the drawings. It was just a change to the story poles.

Correct. Thank you.

That is all on it.

We have a few photos from the various neighbors' windows, but those are before we lowered the story poles, because we couldn't come back again and again.

And just to clarify on the story pole, because I did go up there and look at it today, the original story poles are still there. And then I think you strung a green tape at the lower level, so in case you want to see it. And there are pictures here.

They have photos on the dais. We have a package.

Any other questions?

Yeah, I've got one. OK, Don. One we haven't brought up yet, but I'd like to talk a little bit about how the property presents to the street. We in Belvedere all think our streets are unique and special. But that little lane on that stretch of Golden Gate really is of a piece as you go from property to property. And obviously, it's narrow and it's largely green with ivy or podocarpus in your case. And yet your proposal here kind of departs from that, right? The waiting between what's open and what's green. So, Don, I just want to, is this a question? It is going to be a question. Okay. And so I guess my question is about the choice there. And would you be open to considering some ideas to increase the greenery as opposed to the open space that you have now?

That's a great question, Don. Thank you for asking it. That was a great question by Don. Thank you for asking it. Of course, I'm open to it. I'm not wed to anything. My primary objectives were as I keep repeating to my architects, follow the Belvedere Municipal Code. Do what Rebecca tells you to do. We have to stay, we have to color inside all the lines. Get neighbor feedback. Let's incorporate it. Regarding how it looks from the front, my last project, and I don't do this professionally, I'm a single mom, stay at home. I happened to have a couple of projects as we moved. And the last house I did, I remember Nancy Chemnitzer gave me some great advice because it was her observation over the decades in Belvedere that and I because I asked her a question I don't know what to do. There seems to be a push and pull going on where people want privacy, privacy, more privacy, privacy for themselves, privacy so they don't see their neighbors. OK, I'll follow that. But then they also want to be friendly and a little bit open and give you a little peek of a beautiful home. So I said, OK, I'll cut down some trees. I'll trim it. And she also said it's lovely to give to pedestrians and people who walk Belvedere little views And I said, great. So the last house also had two gates, Don, and I did a lot of tree trimming to open up what I called two view alleys. And that seemed great. So I think I took that lesson from the last project that everyone liked and thought, be open, be friendly, let them see a little bit, because that seemed the right thing to do. But I almost feel like Belvedere is changing. And then Nancy was saying she almost lamented that it was turning into green tunnels where we would walk our dogs. And I'm not objecting to what most of Belvedere wants. I just wish I could have clarity on what Belvedere or people want. I have no trouble trying to adapt to what is wanted. I just don't always see clearly. What is it that is wanted? Did you want all green and to see as little of me and as little of my house and as little as possible? Or did you want a little bit friendlier of a, you can see the house a little, come on in. Oh, you can, oh, look at me. I'm in, you can see me in my office. I waved to you through the window and I said, come on in. Which one should I go for, Don? I'm open. I hope that, I tried to answer your question, but I think I answered with more questions.

Hi, I'm Patrick LaPelche. I'm the project architect working with Christina and Jared. I think there are practical issues. So I just wanted to chime in with that. One of the criteria that Christina asked for was to have a parking court that allowed for an ingress and egress and that you wouldn't have to back out into the street. So that means we have two 16 wide foot telescoping gates. And then we also have a front door gate and an ADU gate. So all the space that is left over, we wanted to ensure that that was all going to be greenery. So I think we tried to provide the functional aspects of what Christina needed for getting onto the property and off the property, along with the requirements to provide as much greenery and privacy as possible. I think we reached as good a compromise as we could on that one.

Got it. And I don't mean to entertain this discussion now, but I'll pitch you on one thing.

Let me piggyback on Don's question now that we're here. And I think it's probably a question for one of the architects. each of the gates is almost like a double wide garage door, for instance, at 16 feet. Do they need to be 16 feet based on the automobile movements or could they be reduced?

We had our civil engineer do a study on turning radii, turning radius for vehicles. And as they're coming into the property, as well as egress. So as they're coming out of the U-shaped entry court or auto court, You have to have enough width because the street is fairly narrow. You have to have enough width so that you can make that turn without, you know, clipping.

And staff mentioned that you know, they're recommending some wood and did you undertake any studies or bring anything to this meeting?

That was brought up this morning as the, from the first time, for the first time by the planning, we're very happy to do that. They had suggested wood. We had concerns about how that would hold up over time. So our suggestion was to have a steel frame with wood slats. So it would be, again, a good compromise on the visual quality, but also something that would last. Okay.

There's also a sample on the dais for you. One of the larger sheets folded in half. There's a photo of it. Oh, okay.

We got a lot of stuff here on the dais.

I'll want to talk about this a little more when our time comes.

Are there any other questions? Rebecca, do you have a photo that you could post so that the neighbors can see it? Or Sammy? I think that's

There is an extra copy of the back, I can go grab on to. But Sammy, no.

Sorry, so the proposal for the for the for the gate, just looking at this, the gates is to have solid wood with the

with the metal or to have slats of wood? Again, that was just sort of a placeholder because this came up just this morning. That's just to illustrate the idea of having a steel frame. But I think the wood slats would allow for more transparency as we had in our initial design.

Okay.

Yeah.

Thanks. And then I wanted just to ask which which we'd asked for the last applicant at 419 in terms of construction, construction management, and parking, and traffic, and haulage, etc. Can one of the architects talk talk about that? Just because I know that that's a that's a big concern, not not just for the direct neighbors, but also for the larger community.

We plan to be working with a local contractor that does a lot of work in Belvedere. And he understands the construction management process. And we will certainly provide a construction management plan when we have our building permit application.

OK. And sorry, I shouldn't have let you sit down. And similar similar to the last applicant is your plan to to basically provide for a a parking space early in the construction process so that more off more off street parking for construction vehicles can be accomplished.

I think RJ answered that question very well. We want to set up a wide construction zone right from the get-go and then eventually back our way out, as he mentioned, to more what's going to end up as the final driveway. But I see the whole frontage is being opened. Will there be enough parking for the whole crew? Probably not. They're going to have to, you know, shuttle.

I'm just saying to maximize the number of construction vehicles that...

Yeah, I mean, we have the whole width of the front to play with for for the construction process.

Okay, thank you.

So I had one minor question. So the code this color for where is this going to be this on the submission, the deco line, fossil?

The stone accents on the front. Maybe go to the front elevation.

OK, great.

That's the stucco sample?

Yeah, that's the stucco. But you're still planning, what was it, chantilly lace for the main white of the house?

It's not chantilly lace. That was RJ's color.

I was going to say, it's

I think the name is on the sample.

I think the name is called Deco Lime Fossil. That's this.

OK. Yeah, Deco Lime.

So that's all the stucco that's the main white. OK.

Cloud white.

It's sort of an off-white.

I think the color's named Fossil, I'm guessing.

Cloud white, Fossil.

Deco Lime is the product and is the color Fossil.

Let's see if it's Fossil or White Cloud.

It might be White Cloud. OK. But that's the color. That's the color sample.

Okay. And to that question for now.

Okay. I think you may be ready to hear from members of the public. Would anybody like to come forward and make a comment?

Dan Hunter, 420 Golden Gate Avenue. Thanks again. I don't need to repeat that speech. I do want to correct the record just slightly. It sounded a little weird to me when I heard it. But the first time Christina and I talked about her house, I said to her, I would love to see you do anything except block my view. And we had a discussion about that in writing. She actually said to me, I will respect your view. This was a year and a half before anything ever went up. So I didn't think about it. I said, just as long as you keep it below the ridge, I'll be happy in terms of that. And I think she would confirm that. So we didn't get a complete set of plans until after the story polls went up on a Friday, I think, which was the very last day for story polls. We responded with one letter, and since then have never changed the request. Wood in the gates, lowering the building one foot, many of the things they did. there was no delay on our part we had very little time to respond to it we never changed our requests so having said that we're in favor of the project so thank you

Fred Goldberg, 425 Golden Gate Avenue. I just have a couple of comments and one concern. We agree with all the issues that concern the traffic. We've lived with this mess for four and a half years. And now we're going to look at at least two more years, it looks like. And it was really terrible. Some of the things you suggested doing, I think would be very worthwhile, but I think there has to be some enforcement. There was not enforcement over the last four years, only partial. A lot of damage was done and it was very annoying. So I hope that's a condition of the approval here. The other issue is the size of the house. We've lived next door to that house for 25 years now. And now we're facing putting a house that's bigger than the one that was there before on half the lot. That was, or not half, a little more than half the lot. And it just, if it's going to be white, that's even worse. We're going to look from our terrace, we have a, long terrace and it extends from about three quarters of our house to the end. And I think it's going to help reducing the size of the master bedroom. So we applaud that. But it's still, if it's going to be white, white, and it sounds like it, it looks like it's going to be, we're going to be looking at a white wall there. Our main concern was the privacy invasion. And I think that Christina and we have solved about 90% of that. We're going to accept some of the plants she's offered us and put them on our terrace. She's built a platform to hold I guess it has about 10 of those protocopuses. And that's going to help, but it's going to take five years because they're seven feet off the ground. So that's not an immediate solution. We're going to build our own trellis behind our four or five plants. And we'll probably put a vine on that as well. So that's going to help us in the short term. We've also contracted with Bartlett to provide a accelerated, you know, growth in fertilizer to make all the, we have lots of trees that are all along the area that we're concerned about. And those trees, they need a jumpstart somehow. We think that that might do it over the next two years. At least it'll get us close to covering that. So the only remaining issue is a double window from the dining room, which looks directly down on us. And maybe it's a short-term issue if we can get our plants to grow up the next couple of years. But it's still disconcerting. The people that lived there before, I don't know if you know Dr. Kim, he was not very respectful of that at all. It was very irritating to have people looking down on you. And we're going to still face that. Although, as I said, it's two years. Maybe we can get our trees to grow up that high. Some of them on the northern side are above the fence that we have now. So other than that, We think it's worth approving. And I hope that the trellis that Christina has agreed to put across the end of her deck, it doesn't show that. It showed it just now in that picture, but it didn't on the plans that it goes across the entire east end of that deck. And we would hope that that is conditional on approval, that that gets made and it gets installed and it gets kept there. And that will solve both the short and the long-term issues.

Thanks a lot for your consideration of those thoughts. Thank you.

Hello, John Owen from 416 and 418. Just a couple of, or three points actually. One is, I think like 419, we would like that when the framing is done, that that is surveyed, please. We would like to make a comment about the colour of the house. I do think it'd be rather bright in its current form and whether something could be more subdued. And the other part I would like to make, anything that you can do, pleased to ensure that the construction process of two houses, you heard the problems with one house, we'll multiply that by two, and they're falling over each other on the same site. It's going to be really, really awful for the neighbours for the next few years. And let it be known, it was in the ARC recently, that it's not the owners who suffer through these building projects, but the poor neighbors. So please, anything you can do to alleviate that would be appreciated. Thank you.

Thank you.

I just wanted to request that the city please enforce. It's nice to say that they only give three orange permits, but there was absolutely no enforcement.

Hi, ma'am. Can you say your name and your address? Thank you.

I'm Debbie Bennett at 428 Golden Gate. And I just wanted to request that the city please enforce the three orange permits because there was absolutely no enforcement with 421. The neighbors would bully and... you know, beg us not to call. And then one time there was, I'm sorry, 431. I'm sorry. So anyhow, they were only enforced one day for that entire project, as far as I'm aware. And so it would really be great if the city could enforce and not have a complaint-based system, but actually enforce the three parking spots because it's not fair to the neighbors to have to be ratting out every time there's multiple cars. And yeah, it's understandable. There's going to be days where there's a sub that needs a whole bunch of cars. But on a day to day basis, it would be really nice if we could keep it at the six cars on the street for the two sites and ensure that it's enforced.

Thank you.

Hi, I'm Marla Newell and my husband's Peter Newell and we've lived in Belvedere for about 40 years almost. So we've seen a lot of changes. We're both architects and there was a time that you used to be able to walk around the island and you get to look at people's houses and yards and views. Well, that's no longer that way. It's almost like a tunnel. And everyone puts up a hedge. I think the rule is six feet, but it seems to be 20 feet now. And so when I was looking at Christine's project, one thing I really, really liked about it was her house, the front elevation is quite low. Number two, her house is set further away from the street, allowing more depth. And I also like now I know in the rendering, the metal gates are kind of harsh. And then the the greenery is kind of harsh against the metal gate. And sometimes that's just a rendering problem. Metal gates allow you to view more because it can. sustain the weight of a large 16-foot gate. So you get to see into the yard and you have more depth. So when you put a wooden fence, it's like boarding it all off again. So personally, because I do walk around there, even though I don't live on that street, I prefer the metal gates. And it is harsh in the rendering. And then having it double is even better. And also we're in a day of age that parking is almost going to be worth its weight in gold. And we're only in the beginning of ADUs. And the state is coming really hard down on the city of Belvidere because of we're wealthy and can keep everyone at bay. So another thing I appreciate a lot about her project is she tucked an ADU underneath her house. Now that ADU could have been detached four feet from the neighbors, 18 feet high. And it wouldn't have gone through design and review. And not only that, she's tucked this into her project. She's also tucked the timeline because an ADU would have had a separate timeline. In fact, I'm not sure it has a timeline. according to the state of California. So I appreciate the project. I think she's done a great job, better job than I would have done because I would have gotten myself in trouble because architects dream. And we get, this is a project I think she can do under the time limit. and we need all this construction done. And along that line, I know that it's never been done, but we're just gonna have more and more construction. We have two projects like this next to next. I know it's impossible to kind of like, oh, we're gonna have one concrete pour, we'll have one street closure, but it's an idea to start thinking about because logistically it's just, you know, she has a street closure. Because you have a concrete floor, you need a street closure. And then the next person has one. But everyone's on different timelines. Now, if you gave some goodies for someone to wait to do it with the other neighbor and added some time onto their two and a half year or two year timeline, that's some way to think about trying to coordinate the two projects together. Now, I know that's a nightmare because contractors have their own timeframe. But anyhow, there's some things to think about. Thank you.

Thank you. Thank you.

You have a couple more minutes? You may. Thank you. Dan Hunter, 420 Golden Gate. On the issue of the driveway gates, I think the wood is really important to soften that whole front. plaster thing that we got going there. The one thing that Marla I think she didn't realize is when you look through the gate, you see a full double car garage door, metal and glass. There's no planting around it or anything. So you got a brick driveway, 18 feet later, you have a glass and metal uh so it's you're really not seeing anything there that you want to see plus when we stack the cars in there it's going to be even worse so i'd strongly hope that you guys did think about a condition on that gate and the other thing is the i think the white is pretty stark but that's all i'll say about that thank you

Rebecca, do you see anybody on Zoom?

No one has their hand raised on Zoom.

Is anybody else in the room inclined to make a comment? Yes, sir.

First time I sit in the design review, it was very enlightening. And it was also very revealing in terms of a consideration.

Can you please state your name and your address?

Yes, I will. Thank you. Thomas Chen. My wife and I, we own the property at 424 Golden Gate Avenue, right across Fred Goldberg's house. I was saying that it's been very enlightening. learning the review process, as well as the consideration goes into each project. And I have a great deal of respect for you all in doing the job without me and study so diligently. I have a great depth of understanding. I know I cannot measure up with you for sure. But I have several takeaways. The first takeaway is, I think you mentioned earlier about the project of 419. They have basically an extra space of approximately 500 square foot beyond what's normally approved for. And we are setting a precedent for future submission. And I'm sure every applicant will come out with some sort of justification, almost to the point, very difficult for you folks to reject. And my question is very simple. When I sit there to listen, I said, what if you say you don't want to have the 500 square foot added on and above what's regulated? What would be the owner of the land as well as the property owner will respond to that? I mean, there is a choice one has to make. And the question is, who is going to make a choice? I get the sense that you folks feel that justification submitted to you is acceptable. And I'm pretty certain there will be a lot more requests for approval of exceptions going forward, because this is only the beginning of this divided lots for new construction. The second point I want to make is I'm almost at the point of asking the city council to be accountable for managing the traffic during the construction period. There is a project going on on block 300. Every day I go by that. I see every crew member, every single crew member drive their own car. 7.30 in the morning, they are there already. And I'm thinking that if I were the property owner of the neighborhood, and I want to have a parking space for whatever reasons, I need to beat their timeline. I have to get up at maybe 7 o'clock in the morning to find a space before their arrival. Worse yet, a lot of crew members actually use their car as a working space, open up the door, do their project. And we go by, we have to stop for them to recognize us, shut the door, we pass through, they open the door again, resume their work. I don't think this is acceptable, okay? And I think Fred mentioned that, David mentioned that enforcement is very important. When I first moved to Golden Gate Avenue back in 2010, everybody tells me, be careful. Don't park beyond the white line. Otherwise, you will get a ticket. So we were extremely careful to the point of scratching our car on the side. But now, I don't feel like anybody cares. Maybe this is an overstatement of my sentiment, but it's true. The enforcement is lacking. And I'm very concerned when this tool project gets approved and things gets going and you folks set a deadline to finish the project, I think everybody's going to rush to complete. How are you going to enforce this? I mean, that's a big question. And I think it ties to the credibility of the city.

Thank you. You're a little bit over your time limit. So if you could wrap up, we have a time limit on the, on the comments. Okay, sorry. I appreciate your comments. So thank you. Okay. Any further comments? I will bring it back to the commission for discussion then. Commissioner July, can you start us out please?

Sure, here we go. I have again the concern of the slope. I would say slope, as brutal as it is, especially when we age, it does magic. if it is used properly. The magic would be the lands in Belvedere are small, but in some neighborhoods or some houses, you would go to that little land and you feel you are in a vacation place. You don't see anybody around you. because it used the slope, because it respected the privacy of the neighbor, because it built when the other building is not there. So I think this particular code of Belvedere that requires building on a slope, building aligned with the slope has been done for a long time because we inherited the beauty that we have now. When we go and we don't see on some small lands, on some small houses, We see nothing except views and beauty. And I think it is very important to protect it. Otherwise, everybody wants to build bigger. Everybody wants to build flat. Everybody doesn't like slope, doesn't like steps. I'm sorry. And then that is going away. So... And to this project, I agree that when one of the people here mentioned that the ADU went below as instead of being out somewhere. And I accept that. Yes, that is true. That is an effort that has been done. But I think more could have been done by simply, I don't know, like stepping Two steps down, two steps down wouldn't hurt aging people. I mean, two steps down for more people would work. I don't want to design or I don't want to say how to do it, but I think there are ways to do not to have a one large floor plate that... damages other people's privacy. And that privacy not only is removed for the neighbors, but also for yourself. Like when we sit on our deck, if another neighbor is right there, it's not just hurting me who built that, it helps both sides. You wanna sit there, laugh, whatever, and then you see your neighbor is sitting there and you become conscious and you feel like, okay, I need to be more quiet. I need to be, I mean, this would help both sides. It's not helping you. If somebody else using privacy means you lost privacy as well. It hurts both sides. So again, I think this project, although I agree that the second unit could have done worse and has done worse good being underneath but i think with stepping couple of steps down would have um i don't have the height issue um not that i think all neighbors are fine with the height you are within the height limit you don't have much height but you could cap you could keep your height interior ceiling whatever which is you know grand and nice and brings light in but at the same time um by a couple of steps down you would basically resolve the slope issue. That is my my think on this.

So we need to go to the mic, please, if you're speaking, and the chair needs to reopen the public hearing, if you would like.

Yes, I'll reopen the public hearing. And please give us a brief comment.

I apologize, I've wanted to defend my architects here. To be more precise, my instruction to them were always to make it wheelchair accessible because they had thought about that, but I insisted on wheelchair radius be drawn to show me that the main area and the master bathroom were wheelchair friendly. So they had thought of that and just wanted to defend them.

Yes, they are reputable architects. So that was one. I think the house is not for the slope with your direction. The other comment I have is about the motor court. I agree with the architect. Because of the length of the motor court, You cannot go in and out of it easily if you make the gate smaller. However, I find it not appropriate for the setting. Maybe this type of motor court is for, I don't know, a chateau somewhere in a big land in Woodside. I don't know. It is not for a small golden gate setting. precious Golden Gate Avenue. It is one of the nicest. And I think I agree that you cannot make it smaller, but I'm wondering if it is needed to have a motor court on Golden Gate. And the two gate, I feel it is excessive. I would say maybe have a return somehow in that motor court and then come back from the same gate out. It is not as easy, but I think it would add to the character of the, or better said, it would maintain the character of the neighborhood. I don't have any issues with the metal, although if applicant and neighbors like the wood, I think metal as, again, was noted is more durable. It's not aging as fast. We see a lot of wood fencing around the Belvedere, which age quickly, and then they are not nice to look at. Day one, they are warm and nice, but during time, I think metal would be better, but personal opinion, and maybe if all neighbors like the wood better, no comment there. um and so i think those are the only comments i have my comments are about basically the motor code in front and some steps that would make it work with the slope thank you commissioner shinsky please yeah just a couple thoughts um

You know, I'm trying to figure out how to evaluate this versus the rendering, which is snow white versus this, which is quite a bit more muted and then trying to extrapolate to large space. And I can't quite tell. I mean, for the general sentiment that I think a subdued color, something in the grays, beiges would be kind of more satisfying. I would support any, efforts in that direction. But I am pleased to see that this is not this. Regarding the gates, I guess I swayed a little bit by Ms. Newell's discussing the value in kind of having some way to see into properties. Um, I hadn't thought about that, particularly in the context of that particular lane where I always thought that, well, that is actually one of the few tunnels. I don't see Belvedere as being all tunneled. I see a lot of Belvedere with roof lines and things that you can't see while you're, you can't see the Bay while you're walking. Uh, but that's, to me, that's a little different than a tunnel that, uh, Little patch there is something that I see is almost English in its dimensions. And I don't know. I think that's worth for that little stretch there. I think that's worth preserving. I do think this is quite a bit out of character with what else is in the line of that lane. I don't know if that's removing a gate gets us there. I would start with maybe the front entryway. just closing it down to the single door entry and seeing what that looks like without the columns and without the extra side grills alongside the door. I know that doesn't add and then replace those spaces with the podocarpus. I don't know how far that gets us, but I'm a little bit concerned that the two gates is just, more than visually you want to see there notwithstanding the argument that a motor court solves some issues by getting cars off the road it certainly wouldn't be the only motor court up on golden gate so i don't know where i am on that just yet thank you commissioner watson

I'm not gonna address the gates, because I think my commissioner said everything I was gonna say. All right, so I wanted to talk about trees. Trees are one of my favorite subjects ever. And I know that the staff had recommended adding an additional tree to offset the trees that had been removed. And I also just wanted to highlight, and I was just looking for the letter, but I know one of your neighbors addressed the downslope to Belvedere Avenue and the stability of the downslope. And so I would appreciate, and I know that demolition and construction is, has a tendency to be disruptive to, especially to sloped land. And so I would appreciate keeping the trees on the downslope to stabilize the property. And also to the extent that, and I know that the finalization of the landscape plan will come after this meeting, but really paying attention to the way that your property is viewed, not just from the street, from Golden Gate Avenue, but also sort of up from Belvedere Avenue. You don't have a hanging pool, but you can see the underside of your house. So I would support adding an additional tree and being mindful of that with your final landscape plan. I also would be supportive of adding the same condition that we had for 419, which is having a surveyor certify the height of the framing to conform to the approved plans. And also once again, like in 419, really paying attention to the construction management In conjunction with not just the project here at 421, but also in connection with 419 for traffic and impact and hauling and everything with respect to the staging and planning for the construction permit, which is all going to be your job. That's what I have. Thank you.

Thank you. So I feel like, first of all, I really appreciate the way the neighborhood is involved and you've all been talking to each other and working toward a a goal that will be acceptable to all. I know there's a little bit of compromise involved along the way. I talked to most of you that are here tonight. But I think it's been a very healthy process. I want to kind of commend everybody. for working together. I feel that the result I'm going to be able to support in general with some conditions, but the way I would characterize this house is it's a fairly modest presence from the street. I don't think you're going to have a big impression of the house. And that leads me to this whole frontline with which we've been talking about the gates and the fencing. um that almost is perhaps the most sensitive part of the design to me at this point um you know so kind of commensurate with what we saw in the previous application i'm thinking that you know in addition to the landscaping come back we need to at a minimum have the gates and the fence come back for an internal design review with staff and myself, or if anything more than that is called for, you guys can let me know. Along those lines, I do think that the color is a bit stark, to use Mr. Hunter's words i'd like to see um the applicant explore some ideas to it doesn't have to be a radical departure but it it seems you know you've got black eaves i think they're metal you know and then to have the white right next to it um it could it could be pretty contrasty and what i notice on the elevations around the house don't have color on them but when you really look at how much plaster there is on the house, there's a lot of it. So I would like to see some work on the color. I agree on the framing certification, trees on down slope, whether ultimately, whether they're the trees that are there or other trees, I think that's an important point. Skylights, I took a look at the skylights. I'd like to see at a minimum at least seven removed. What I noticed, there's places like the front hall has two. Maybe you could do one there. There's other rooms and closets that have other sources of natural light and a skylight. So maybe you can do without a skylight here and there. I'm not going to prescribe how you go at this, but I think there's an ample opportunity to do. reduce skylights and then I just want to briefly address the privacy issue with the next door neighbors with the deck I don't think I have much to add to the conversation other than to say I hear a lot of ideas in process and commitments going back and forth. It may take time to solve it. If you bring a trellis back to increase your privacy, I'm sure you'll get approval. PB, Harmon Zuckerman, And so I feel like it's on the road to solution that I just encourage you guys to keep the conversation going and get where you need to go with that. PB, Harmon Zuckerman, So those are those are my comments.

PB, Lupita D Montoya, Is there any appetite to discuss the slope and stepping out down the House from the applicant architect and the other Commissioners.

To me, the stepping down of the slope goes sort of hand in glove with the privacy concerns, but...

Sorry, it's a bug. I thought it was personal.

But... I guess it's a question for the applicant because stepping down the slope would mean more of a design change now as opposed to greenery or other screening mechanisms for increased privacy. Yes.

We're happy to provide more planting, more screening from below, no problem. But wheelchair accessibility is key to this design for a number of reasons that we don't need to get into personal family stuff, but it's a non-starter to have steps and knobs. And sure, it'd be nice to step down the hill, but if you're in a wheelchair, this doesn't work.

So I... And my colleague, I mean, it is a good topic and a good discussion about stepping down. I mean, that's what we're confronted with all the time, what the applicants are confronted with, what architects are confronted with. And we should go over exactly what, is it in our code or in our general plan, what we say about that? It's not a thou shalt step down your house. PB, Lupita D Montoya, yeah that.

PB, Lupita D Montoya, code, but it might be in one of the subjective designer the findings, but let me check request permission to tell you where it is.

PB, Lupita D Montoya, it's at the start of the design review findings it's in the first paragraph, the very first paragraph, it said i'm slow plots of the should follow the slope you it's in that first preamble before it is. PB, Lupita D Montoya, yeah I can read it if you want.

PB, Lupita D Montoya, yeah.

It says all new buildings or additions constructed on sloping land should be designed to relate to the natural land forms and step with the slope in order to minimize the building mass and bulk and to integrate the structure with the site.

That sounds like a shell.

It's a should not a shall.

Well, you know, from my standpoint, I think that. It's pointing to basically a building envelope where the height is running parallel to the slope. So you're building envelopes descending on the slope. But what I think this applicant has chosen to do for bare reasons is to not step the building up toward the street side. PB, Harmon Zuckerman, The way I would look at it there well within the building envelope I don't think there's a requirement to step. PB, Harmon Zuckerman, If if they were like poking out through the height limit, then I think that would be a no, no.

PB, Lupita D Montoya, I was just gonna. PB, Lupita D Montoya, say something along those lines that if they were exceeding. HAB-Masyn Moyer- One of the zoning parameters for that district, then yes, I think we would sort of pivot and reevaluate, but in this case they meet the setbacks they meet the height requirements.

HAB-Masyn Moyer- But what I read has not doesn't sit talk about the height, maybe I need to learn more on that, so it doesn't talk about the height at all, it just talks about. HAB-Masyn Moyer- Stepping down the slope.

So if I could, I mean, it is one of the design review criteria, as you read, and as Mr. Hunter helpfully pointed out. But, you know, it is only one of the considerations for the planning commission. It's not the only consideration. And like all the other design review criteria, it is not mandatory.

Got it. Thank you.

Okay. Any further comments? Are we ready to make a motion?

I think I think we should just sort of discuss among ourselves what conditions we would we would like we would like to we would like to have with respect to the design review resolution. I do not have any conditions for the demolition. But I guess my question with respect to the revocable license motion is whether we want to condition any changes with respect to the gates.

Are the gates off the property? The gates are on the private property.

Oh, they're not in the revocable license space?

Yeah, the items in the right-of-way are the driveway, the landscaping, and then the entry pedestrian walkway. Outside the gates, which are on the property line.

Okay, got it, thank you, sorry. By the way, on that revocable license drawings, I think the, I don't have it in front of me, but I think where we have two areas of the stone, one calls for stone, the other one calls for brick, but I think that's just a mistake. I don't think you are planning to do two different material.

HAB-Masyn Moyer- And I just draw your attention to condition, I am the design of your resolution, because I think some of it might help you, but certainly amenable. HAB-Masyn Moyer- Yes.

And for the benefit of everyone here, I'll just go ahead and read what condition I says right now, which is prior to the issuance of a building permit, a final landscape and exterior lighting plan shall be submitted for review and approval by the planning commission chair and the planning staff, All exterior lighting shall be shielded and directed downward. The seven well lights shall be replaced with shielded and downward directed fixture. Additionally, the skylights shall be white or light opaque lenses. And then we can add the removal if we want to add that. The landscape plan shall include more mature plantings at the property line between 421 and 425 Golden Gate to screen the terrace. Additionally, the plantings on the deck at 421 shall include lattice and plants that run the length and railing that faces 425 currently was. Alright, so does anyone have any proposed conditions for either demolition or revocable license?

So are we keeping the two gates?

Well, the gates are not within the revocable license area. They were saying that they're on the private property.

Yes, but in front of it, instead of planting, if we keep outside the property where the gate is, now is pavement. But if we want to remove that gate, then over there would be planting.

Greg? One point, I'm sorry, one point I wanted to raise that I just caught. Here on this revocable license exhibit, past direction we've had from council was to have the pavers here for the driveway entry to be the same kind of material or color as the street. Because in a sense, when they have these pavers in this way, it kind of privatizes this land. So maybe have one amendment saying that this shall not have paved access, but just match the street.

Just the asphalt.

The asphalt, yeah.

Thank you. I think if I understood your, well, it could get into the revocable license, but the gate issue is really covered under design review, right?

But I wonder if maybe we need Rebecca or Sammy or to comment on it. So if basically I'm wondering if the gate, if one of the gates are to be removed, I understand that's on a private property, but in front of it now is proposed stone paper, which we are going to change it to asphalt. But if it is going to be no gate there, then instead of asphalt over there would be, So is that, does that need to be identified in this revocable license? What it is going to be there? I think you usually require exactly note what is going to be in that area. Go ahead.

So for the revocable license, it's a recommendation for approval. So I think through discussion here, if the direction is to come back with landscaping instead of that driveway, we can have that shown by the architect on the revocable license and then take it to the city council for approval.

And I would wait for that approved landscape plan to then amend the revocable license. And I also think that the gate, situation doesn't necessarily have to be decided right now, right? That the gate is part of the landscape plan and it can come back to the chair and myself and maybe once the plans get more developed for the building permit, we'll have, you know, a better idea of sort of what that streetscape inner space will look like, you know, just a thought to not put pressure on deciding whether it's wood or metal or, you know, how that interfaces with the project.

Do you, do you want it?

The chair has to reopen the public hearing.

Okay. So I think, yeah, I think we can, I just, I want to give, um, credence to as lays idea, or at least ask the, the other commissioners, how you feel about the one gate versus two gate solution that she's talking about. And is that something you want to entertain? Sorry to put you on the spot.

I would want to see a, a one gate plan. Like I, I, I like Rebecca's idea of, I don't want to say kicking the can down the road, but, but, but really wanting to see what a, what a one gate plan would look, would look like. Because I also think there's just a lot of metal in the front.

The landscape, the, that the plan can also come back to the whole commission. That's what you guys decide.

I trust Alex.

There's also a few people in the audience that are asking that the public hearing be reopened. So I'm sorry to interrupt.

OK. I'll reopen the public hearing.

Sorry, this will only take a second. John Owen, 416, 418. I'm looking at the revocable license exhibit. I wonder if that's going to be modified in the future, that they could include all the buildings on the other side, because that's our house and Dan's house as well, because it does affect the position of those gates and our buildings. properties are very much interlinked so if if i could request that that and so when you do that evaluation that you're looking at the total picture not just this side of it so do you mean in terms of the what the way that cars pull in and pull out yeah and sorry i'm the way i'm thinking if somebody's driving along golden gate avenue and they want to turn into this proposed driveway, they actually have to swing across the road in order to make a turn. You could not do that turn without doing that. Or you would have to go up to the end of the road and come back and do it from the other side. And I think that should be shown and considered.

I think they are showing that on A0.2. Is that what you are? Maybe if we can bring that up. I think that is shown on that drawing.

Well, the drawing that was just up there shows the car that has obviously come in onto that, to me, a right-hand gate. It has to have, if it came along from Golden Gate Avenue, it would have had to have come round.

From the circle.

Yeah. And the reason I mention this is because our driveway is opposite that. And we have to put cones up there because everybody uses that as sort of overspill from the road. And I think this is just going to exacerbate that situation.

Thank you.

And I would certainly entrust that decision to whoever's going to opine on the situation in the future. And it's not necessarily going to be a public hearing. So I just want to make that point, please.

I'm sorry. Can you explain one more time your concern and the cone situation?

Well, my concern is that we live opposite. You can see it on this drawing. And anybody going into those gates would have to swing across the road And it's almost impossible to make that turn, as far as I can see from here. I just want you to do that evaluation and decide whether that's the case.

The extent to which cars can come in perpendicularly, perpendicular is the question, versus coming in diagonally into it. Yeah. carport and leaving in the same direction.

I mean, it's a nice idea to have a turnaround, but as I think you mentioned, that's for chateaus and where you have more space. We don't have a lot of space here to do those turns. Okay. Thank you very much.

Dan Hunter, 420 Golden Gate. I think there's a typo in the condition on skylights. I think it said they shall be white or opaque instead of shall not be. I would take a look at that if you want to reread it again.

I'm sorry, Mr. Hunter. I was conferring. What is your language?

On the skylights, it's a standard condition. But the way I heard you read it is that skylights shall be white or opaque instead of shall not. I might have misheard.

It says shall include white or light opaque colored lenses.

So opaque means no light comes through. So I think you'd say shall not be white or opaque. I think what it used to say is that they shall be like a brown's color. But white or opaque means you can't get any light through it.

Yeah, that's what I think it's worded correctly.

Okay.

No? We want them opaque. So there's no light pollution to you.

No light would come through opaque. Right.

That's what we're saying.

It's not a skylight.

I get what you're saying.

Okay, that's enough said. You guys can figure it out.

The code says where visible from off-site locations, skylights should not have white or light opaque colored lens.

Oh, yeah, not. We're missing a not. We're missing a not. Okay. Thank you.

All right.

Can you use the microphone? I can't hear you. Thank you.

I said, I, I, um, however we get there, I want, I need it demonstrated. I think to me that two gate and you're ready to do it right now. I can tell, but, but, uh, I'd like to demonstrate it that the, the two gate, uh, the one gate, a one gate solution wouldn't work. Um, before I shrug and say two gates is fine.

Maybe we can hear from the applicant or the applicant's architect on this subject just to sort of orient us since it's being talked about. Could you envision a one gate solution

Can you speak closer to the mic? Thank you. Is it on? Okay, thank you.

There, can you hear me? Yeah. We're trying to solve a parking problem. There's a parking problem on Golden Gate. And if we have one gate... we'll have two cars in front of the garage and two in the garage. If you want to have more than one gate, if you want to have more people, you have guests over, if you follow the two gate solution, your guests can come off the hillside and independently egress. So it seems to me, if parking's an issue at Golden Gate, this is moving towards a solution.

Also, I just want to add that if you got rid of one of the gates, you would essentially be forced to back into the street. And since you have a fence and a hedge, it makes that rather challenging. So by having the two gates, you have the opportunity to exit the property moving forward rather than backing off the property.

You could have a turning table in the garage. Or remove the gate. Yeah, and back into the stream.

I have designed a little

I'm Carol Anderson for 17 Golden Gate. We have to back out of our driveway all the time. That's the only way we can get in there. I just wanted to say that's the way.

Okay, so I'm inclined to I think there's multiple ways to look at this. I I do think the vehicular circulation is a little challenging on Golden Gate, having driven up there numerous times in the last weekend. I actually think that the pass-through driveway can probably make some sense for this property. I think, yes, it would be nicer without one gate. I think But I don't think there's enough room to basically back out of the garage and turn on the property because of the proximity of the house to the property line. So I guess my take on it right now is I think we should condition it. to have the landscaping and the fence as planned, come back for review, either to the whole committee or to me, whatever the sense of the commission is. So that's where I would come down on that. No, I'm, I think I'm in favor of just keeping the plan as it is. Because the reason being, it's kind of embedded in the planning of the property right now. So that's how I would word a condition.

I would still like to have a landscape plan that includes an option for one gate.

So you would like them to bring, and do you want it to come back to commission or just, that's fine. We can, I think that's a good approach. Let's ask them to show it to us, to staff, me, and we'll make a determination.

And if we're, since we're ordering renderings at this point, I'd like you to have, see one that says, PB, Harmon Zuckerman, closes that front middle entry way to the street narrowing it to the width doesn't have to be 30 inches or whatever, but just narrowing it to. PB, Harmon Zuckerman, The width of the actual door and not having the columns and not having the side grills they're.

PB, Harmon Zuckerman, Just for giggles I see the architect taking notes so.

PB, Harmon Zuckerman, I think they're getting the message yeah like all of this. Yeah.

OK. Can we talk about next condition? All right. Now that we fixed the knot for the skylights, do we want to prescribe a number of skylights to be removed or do we want to say skylights to be removed?

Can we say that wherever there is an exterior window, because they added skylight where they have windows as well. So basically remove the skylight from the rooms that already have windows to outside.

Do we know how many that is?

Yes. I actually counted. I think it would come to half. So it is 17. Let's say eight to remain or nine to remain, something like that. How do you feel about that?

Yeah? Yeah.

I think we can just give them a number and let them pick and choose where they want to do it.

Yes.

So that's eight. Remove eight. OK. All right, and then did we want to. address color.

I think we would like to ask them to bring back some more muted color options for the plaster.

That can be. PB Sarah Silver Tchaikovsky. : Reviewed and approved by the planning Commission chair. PB Sarah Silver Tchaikovsky. : Building director yeah.

PB Sarah Silver Tchaikovsky.

: I am taking notes. Okay. All right, shall I read what I think we have for aye?

Yeah, please do.

Okay. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, a final landscape front gate and exterior lighting plan shall be submitted for review and approval by the planning commission chair and planning staff. Oh, and a proposal for a color of stucco that is less stark white. All exterior lighting shall be shielded and directed downward. Seven well lights shall be replaced with a shielded and downward directed fixture. Additionally, the skylights shall not include white or light opaque colored lenses and eight skylights shall be removed from the current plans. And then the rest of it is the landscape plan shall include mature plantings at the property line between 421 and 425 Golden Gate to screen the terrace at 425 Golden Gate and shall include an additional tree on the downslope towards Belvedere Avenue. Additionally, the plantings on the deck at 421 Golden Gate shall include lattice and plants that run the length of the railing that faces 425 Golden Gate.

Is this where we put our framing certification in also? Did we get that?

Where did I put it on?

We can add it to the resolution. It doesn't need to be in the same paragraph. Okay, great. But we understand that to be another condition on this resolution. Thank you.

And then I think on E, which is the general construction management plan on truck loading area and temporary traffic control required as necessary, including coordination with the construction occurring at 419 Golden Gate. How does that sound?

Can you say it again?

Sure.

Okay. So the project will require a construction management plan identifying the following, and it's got a bunch of things, and one of them is truck loading area and temporary traffic control required as necessary, including coordination with the construction occurring at 419 Golden Gate Avenue. All right.

Yes, there's already an additional tree built into I yeah.

OK. All right. OK. All right. I would like to make, I'm going to start with motion number two because it's easy. I'm going to make a motion to grant the demolition permit to demolish the existing 3,609 square foot single family dwelling unit at 421 Golden Gate Avenue.

Second. All in favor? Aye. Aye.

I'm going to then go to motion number three. I would like to make a motion to recommend to the city council approval of a revocable license for improvements of driveway and walkway located in the Golden Gate Avenue right of way at 421 Golden Gate Avenue with the pavement covered by the revocable license to match the asphalt of the street and not the pavement on the driveway. Okay.

Do we need to say contingent any changes in the front?

Yeah, I would say and amended as needed to reflect the approved landscape plan.

Second.

All in favor? Aye.

Okay. All right. Now, I would like to propose a resolution granting a design review to construct a new single family residence and attached garage at 421 Golden Gate Avenue with the following modifications made to conditions. Where am I? Sorry. On condition B, adding the requirement that there be a construction management plan that identifies the following, the truck loading area and temporary traffic control required as necessary, including the coordination with the construction occurring at 419 Golden Gate Avenue and modifying condition I, to read as follows. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, one, a final landscape plan, final landscape front gate and exterior lighting plan, as well as a proposed color of the stucco to be less stark white, each to be submitted for review and approval by the planning commission chair and planning staff. All exterior lighting shall be shielded and directed downward. Seven well lights shall be replaced with a shielded and downward directed fixture. Additionally, the skylight shall not include white or light opaque colored lenses. And eight skylights shall be removed from the current plans. The landscape plan shall include mature plantings at the property line between 421 and 425 Golden Gate to screen the terrace at 425 Golden Gate and shall include an additional tree on the down slope to Belvedere Avenue. Additionally, the plantings on the deck at 421 Golden Gate Avenue shall include lattice and plants that run the length of the railing that faces 425 Golden Gate. And then the certification, do we need to? And the certification.

Of the framing height?

Of the framing height. The certification of the framing to confirm that it reflects the height as shown on the approved plans.

Perfect. Thank you. Second. All in favor?

Aye.

Aye.

No.

Thank you.

Are we adjourning?

Yes, I now adjourn the